Dismissed

The Spl.Tahsildar (La) v. Indira S. Nair

Kerala HC22 Sept 2008LA.App./1024/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In land acquisition appeals filed by the State against reference court decrees regarding railway land doubling, this court dismissed the appeals as they found no merit, noting the valuation was based on evidence without contra proof.

What did the court decide?

The appeals and interlocutory stay applications were dismissed; original decrees in L.A.R. Nos. 202/2006, 127/2006 and 203/2006 remain unaffected.

The Spl.Tahsildar (La) Vs Indira S. Nair — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930

¶6

LA.App.No. 1024 of 2008

¶7

-----------------------------L.A.R.No.202/2006 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

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

¶9

APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT:

¶10

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

¶11

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM, COCHI -16.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶14

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

¶15

1. INDIRA S. NAIR, INDIRALAYAM, THIRUVANKULAM.

¶16

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008 ALONG WITH L.A.A.1218/2008 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------L.A.A.Nos.1024, 1218 & 1362 OF 2008

¶19

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2008.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Kurian Joseph, J.

¶22

These appeals are filed by the State against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.Nos.202/2006, 127/2006 and 203/2006 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Acquisition is for the purpose of doubling the railway line between Ernakulam and Mulanthuruthy.

¶23

In L.A.R.No.203/2006, an extent of 2.27 Ares of land and in L.A.R.No.127/2006 an extent of 1.66 Ares of land coming under group-1 category and in L.A.R.No.202/2006, 1.85 Ares of land coming under group-2 category was acquired.

¶24

The reference court found that as far as dry land included in group-1 category is concerned, acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.12.2003, in L.A.R.No.81/2006, Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the land value at the rate of

¶25

¶26

L.A.A. Nos. 1024/08 & conn. cases

¶27

Rs.35,050/- per Are, referring to document No.9 in the basic valuation report. That property is situated in Thiruvamkulam village near to industrial estate.

¶28

It has come out from Exhibit C1 commission report that acquired property is situated 50 metres away from the tarred panchayath road which starts from LBS road. It has also come out from the evidence of the Advocate Commissioner that the acquired property lies 1 k.m away from Thiruvamkulam junction and there are several important institutions within the radius of 1 k.m. The basis document being dated 28.04.2003 and since Section 4(1) notification is dated 18.12.2003 and taking note of the importance of the locality and the location of the property near to Thiruvamkulam junction, and in the absence of any contra evidence, with the permissible guess work, 40% enhancement was given and the land value was fixed at Rs.54,523/- per Are.

¶29

As far as group-2 category is concerned, property covered by notification dated 18.12.2003, 10% deduction was made from the value of group-1 property, in view of the

¶30

L.A.A. Nos. 1024/08 & conn. cases

¶31

¶32

locational disadvantage of having no tarred panchayath road access and the value was fixed at Rs.49,071/- per Are.

¶33

The fixation thus made by the reference court being based on evidence adduced by the claimants and based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, and in the absence of any contra evidence on the part of the respondents, we find no merit in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.

¶34

All interlocutory applications for stay are dismissed.

¶35

KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE

¶36

K.T. SANKARAN JUDGE

¶37

smp

¶38

L.A.A. Nos. 1024/08 & conn. cases

¶39

¶40

KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ.

¶41

L.A.A. Nos. 1024 & 1362 OF 2008

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

22.09.2008

The Spl.Tahsildar (La) v. Indira S. Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Spl.Tahsildar (La) v. Indira S. Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guruvayoor Co.Op.Urban Bank Ltd. Vs Jt.Registrar of Co.Op.Societies(Gen)Tsr

T.R.Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Abrahm C.Joseph

State of Kerala,Rep.by Spl.Tahsildar(La) Vs a.K.Achuthan Nambiar & Another

Janaki Amma Vs Nanikutty Amma

Rajan Vs Francis