IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 146 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2019 IN LA.App.
241/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
HAMSA M.A.
S/O. MAYIPADY AHAMMED, KEEZHUR CHANDRAGIRI,
REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
C.A.MOIDEEN KUNHI, S/O.ABDULKHADER MUSSALIYAR,
POST CHANDRAGIRI, KALANAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/REFERRING OFFICER & RESPONDENTS
1&2:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BEKAL RESORTS DVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PALAKKUNNU - 671 123.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
KASARAGOD - 671 121.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KASARGOD - 671 121.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD, ROADS DIVISION, PWD ROADS DIVISION,
KASARGOD - 671 121.
SRI.JOBY JOSEPH SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.146 of 2022
in
LAA No.241 of 2016 2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.No.146 of 2022
in
Land Acquisition Appeal No.241 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022.
ORDER
The appellant in Land Acquisition Appeal No.241 of 2016 is the petitioner in the review petition. Parties are referred to in this order, as they appear in the Land Acquisition Appeal.
2. Land Acquisition Appeal No.241 of 2016 was one preferred against the decision in L.A.R No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod. The appellant was the claimant in the proceedings. The said appeal was disposed of along with a batch of other land acquisition R.P.No.146 of 2022 in LAA No.241 of 2016 3 appeals preferred by the claimants against the decisions in the references involving lands acquired for the very same purpose, pursuant to the same notification. In the appeal, the challenge was mainly against the insufficiency of compensation granted towards the land value as also the compensation granted towards injurious affection. Having regard to the materials on record, this Court enhanced the land value granted to the appellant to Rs.2,09,209/- per Are. As regards the compensation granted for injurious affection, the case set out by the appellant before the reference court was that there is a substantial height difference between the acquired land and the remaining property after the acquisition. This Court proceeded on the assumption that after the acquisition, the height difference was increased by 1 to 2 meters, and on that basis, this Court granted an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant over and above Rs.30,000/- granted under that head by the reference court. The only grievance of the appellant in R.P.No.146 of 2022 in LAA No.241 of 2016 4 this review petition concerns the decision of this Court as regards the compensation granted for injurious affection.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Government Pleader.
4. It is seen that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the stage of reference at the instance of the claimant, and the Advocate Commissioner reported that after the acquisition, the remaining land of the appellant is lying at a height of 4.5 meters from the acquired land. Paragraph 8 of the report of the Advocate Commissioner reads thus:
The Commissioner has identified the property subject matter of LAR 5/2013. The said property is comprised in R.S.No.134/2C1(134/12, 14 and 18) of Kalnad village. It measuring 18 sqmts and the said plot is marked as serial No.'6' in the eye sketch. There is no road access to the remaining property of the claimant due to the cutting of the soil. The remaining portion of the said property is higher in level from the road which is about 4.5 mts. And the remaining property of the claimant is marked as 'E' in the eye sketch.
It is without taking note of the report of the Advocate R.P.No.146 of 2022 in LAA No.241 of 2016 5 Commissioner that the appeal was disposed of on an incorrect premise that the height difference after the acquisition is only 1 to 2 meters. Needless to say that an error of this nature is one that needs to be corrected in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.
In the circumstances, the review petition is allowed and the impugned judgment, insofar as it relates to Land Acquisition Appeal No.241 of 2016, is recalled. List the Land Acquisition Appeal for hearing as per roster.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
YKB