Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
BEENA SARASAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of land acquisition and initial compensation paid. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's findings on arbitrary rejection of compensation claim. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. importance of equal compensation rights based on similar land notifications. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7.
2. Petitioner’s land was acquired by the 1st respondent for the 5th respondent and the compensation was paid as per the award passed under Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894”). Petitioner accepted the award on a specific condition that she is eligible to enhanced compensation if any paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894. Later the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram awarded compensation at higher rates in respect of some other lands covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Petitioner relying on Ext.P2 judgment of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram made a claim as per Ext.P3 application which was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P4 and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
