Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. Balaraman

Kerala HC24 Oct 2007LA.App./90/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition appeal regarding the Karapuzha Irrigation Project, the High Court corrected the reference court's multiplier from 12 to 10 for solatium. The court also affirmed claimants' right to interest on solatium.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the Sub Court are modified to apply a multiplier of 10 instead of 12 for solatium. Claimants are entitled to interest on solatium.

State of Kerala Vs Balaraman — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2007 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1929

¶6

LA. App. No. 90 of 2001

¶7

LAR.47/1995 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY

¶8

....................

¶9

APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT:

¶10

--------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS:

¶14

------------------

¶15

1. BALARAMAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶16

2. PARTHASARATHI, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶17

3. KUNHIMEENAKSHI, D/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶18

4. YESODHARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶19

5. MOHANDAS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶20

6. SATHYABHAMA, D/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶21

7. SABARI, D/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶22

LA. App. No. 90/2001

¶23

...2...

¶24

8. VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O. LATE VASUDEVAN, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶25

9. SANTHYA, D/O. VASUDEVAN, MANANGUVAYAL, PURAKKADI AMSOM.

¶26

10. SMITHA, D/O. VASUDEVAN, PURAKKADI AMSOM (MINOR).

¶27

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶29

-----------------------------------------

¶30

L.A.A. NO. 90 OF 2001

¶31

----------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2007.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Kurian Joseph, J.

¶34

This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No. 47/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. Acquisition is for the purpose of Karapuzha Irrigation Project.

¶35

It is seen that the reference court has followed capitalisation method. The multiplier applied is '12'. In view of the decision of the

¶36

Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopal Roy

¶37

and others ( AIR 2002 SC 1423) , the multiplier can only be '10'.

¶38

Therefore, we partly allow the appeal and the judgment and decree will stand modified to the extent of application of multiplier only as '10'. However, we make it clear that in case the claimants have not been granted interest on solatium, being a settled position [See the decision reported in Sunder vs. Union of India (2001(3) KLT 489) ], the claimants shall be entitled to get interest on solatium.

¶39

KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID

JUDGE

smp

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶44

L.A.A. NO. 90 OF 2001