Kerala High Court
Kerala State Industrial Development vs The District Collector on 15 October, 2007
Author: Kurian Joseph
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Harun-Ul-Rashid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 1426 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. ITHIKKUTTY HAJUMMA,
3. KURUNIYAN ABDULLA, S/O KUNHAHAMMEDAJI,
4. KURUNIYAN ADAMKUTTY,
5. KURUNIYAN HAMZA, S/O KUNHAHAMMED HAJI,
6. KURUNIYAN KOYAMU, S/O KUNHAHAMMED HAJI,
7. KURUNIYAN KADEEJA, SHIBILA MANZIL,
8. KURUNIYAN FATHIMASUNHRA,
9. KURUNIYAN SHAREEFA, ELACHOLA VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :15/10/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
L.A.A.No.1426 of 2007
----------------------------------------------
Dated 15th October, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in LAR 59/99 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. The requisitioning authority is the appellant. The acquisition is for Industrial Growth Centre at Panakkad. Section 4(1) notification was published on 14.9.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.2,310/- per cent and the reference court refixed the land value at Rs.4,000/- per cent. On the side of the claimants,Exts.A1 and A2 documents and the common judgment in LAR 49/99 (A3) were marked. Ext.A1 document is Ext.A3 in the common judgment in LAR 49/99 and connected cases. The reference court, taking note of the fact that the acquisition is covered by the same notification, LAA NO.1426/07 2 for the same purpose, and the property is situated adjacent and similar to the property covered by LAR 49/99 and 50/99, following Ext.A3, fixed the land value at Rs.4,000/- per cent. Ext.A3 has become final, in view of the judgment in LAA 252/05 and connected cases. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that large extent of property is involved in this case and hence fixation at Rs.4,000/- per cent is unwarranted. We are afraid, the above contention cannot be appreciated. In LAA 1223/05, covered by the same notification, arising out of LAR 49/99, the extent involved is 2.1894 hectares. In the said case also, this court did not accept the contention that in respect of larger extents, the fixation of market value should be proportionately less, since there was no evidence to establish the contention. In this case also, there is no evidence available before the reference court to establish the contention that being larger extent, the value should be less. Yet another contention is that there is no road access LAA NO.1426/07 3 as far as the property involved in this case is concerned. We are afraid, the said contention also cannot be appreciated. In the award itself, it is clearly stated that there is a Municipal road passing through the acquired property. For all the above reasons, and particularly in view of the fact the relied on judgment (Ext.A3) has become final, this appeal is dismissed.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
tgs