Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Thomas

Kerala HC29 Nov 2007LA.App./1016/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed appeals filed by the State and claimants against the market value and compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for land acquired for the Changanassery Bye-pass. The court held that 60% enhancement over the officer's fixed value is reasonable and dismissed the appeal, but clarified that claimants are entitled to interest on solatium.

What did the court decide?

Claimants directed to be paid interest on solatium.

State of Kerala Vs Thomas — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1929

¶6

LA.App..No. 1016 of 2002(D) --------------------------LAR.153/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT: RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT

¶12

¶13

THOMAS, S/O. VARGHESE, CHITTETHUKALATHIL, VAZHAPALLY EAST, CHENGANACHERRY.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.P.K.SIVADASAN NAIR

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2007, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1118 OF 2002, LAA NO. 569 OF 2003 AND LAA NO.469 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER ON I.A.No.22/03 IN LAA.1016/02

¶17

DISMISSED

¶18

29.11.2007 SD/= KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. SD/= HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

¶19

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A. A. NOS.1016/02, 1118/02, 469/03 & 569/03

¶21

- - - - - - - - - ----------------------- - - - - - - DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Kurian Joseph, J.

¶24

These are appeals filed by the State and the claimant aggrieved by the market value and compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land was acquired for the purpose of Changanassery Bye-pass. As far as the land value is concerned, in all the cases pertaining to the acquisition of Changanassery Bye-pass, this court has held that enhancement to the tune of 60% over the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer would be reasonable. Adv.Shri Premachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that though there was serious grievance regarding the land value, in view of the view already taken by this court in connected matters, their grievances regarding structures at least may be considered.

¶25

The reference court has rightly found on the basis of

¶26

the materials available on record that the claimants have not established a case for any compensation with regard to the value

¶27

L.A. APPLICATION NOS.1016/02, 1118/02, 469/03 & 569/03

¶28

¶29

of the structures. It is submitted that there is a report by the Advocate-Commissioner. But on that report also the reference court has rightly observed that there is no supporting data or materials so as to sustain the claim for compensation on structures.

¶30

Yet another contention taken by the claimants is that they have not been granted interest on solatium. Being a settled position in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India 2001 (3) KLT 489, the appellant is entitled to compensation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State as well as the claimants are dismissed; however clarifying

¶31

that the claimants shall be entitled to interest on solatium also.

¶32

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶33

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

¶34

dsn

State of Kerala v. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyothi Vs M.Ramesan

The President Central Masjid Kalamaserry Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs L.Sivanandan

The Prject Officer,Kwa Vs Parambalath Abdu Rahiman

K.M. Mohammed Vs the Executive Engineer

Project Officer Vs Kooramantharayil Ammu