Allowed

Telecom Department,Rep.by Dist.Manager v. G.Viswanathan Savitha Enterprises

Kerala HC7 Apr 2009LA.App./1244/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a land acquisition appeal regarding land for a telephone exchange at Haripad, the High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal against the land reference court order. The Court refixed the market value of the acquired property at Rs. 17,500 per Are, differing from the lower court's Rs. 28,000, by comparing properties with superior road frontage.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned judgment and decree; refixed the value of acquired properties at Rs. 17,500/- per Are; parties to bear their respective costs.

Telecom Department,Rep.by Dist.Manager Vs G.Viswanathan… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

LA.App..No. 1244 of 2005()

¶6

-------------------------LAR.407/1986 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA ....................

¶7

APPELLANT(S): ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

TELECOM DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

G. VISWANATHAN SAVITHA ENTERPRISES, VISWANATHA CASHEW COMPANY, KILIKOLLOOR, QUILON.

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.182, QUILON.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL GOVT. PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. ( AMENDED).

¶16

THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS:

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

(VIDE ORDER DATED 31/1/2006 IN I.A. NO.360/2006)

¶19

BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI

¶20

ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON FOR R1 SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON FOR R1 SMT.MEERA V.MENON FOR R1

¶21

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.

¶23

L.A.A.No.1244/2005

¶24

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶27

The requisitioning authority is in appeal against the

¶28

judgment and decree of the land acquisition reference court. Acquisition was for the construction of telephone exchange at Haripad. Relevant section 4 (1) notification was published on 22/9/1980. The reference court in the first instance awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,640/- per Are. On an appeal by the Government, to which a cross objection was filed by the claimant, this court set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter back to the reference court. After remand, the appellant got impleaded as a party and the reference court passed the impugned judgment refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per Are as against the original land value of Rs.1746/- per Are awarded by the land acquisition officer.

¶29

We have heard Sri.Mathews K.philip, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Meera.V.Menon learned counsel for the claimants respondents as well as the learned senior Government

¶30

L.A.A..No.1244/2005 2

¶31

Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji for the State. Drawing our attention to Exts.A3 and A4 judgment of the reference court and this court respectively, in another acquisition pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published three years after the section 4(1) notification in this case in respect of properties situated closer to the Haripad Junction than the properties involved in this appeal, it was submitted by Sri.Mathews K.Philip that this court has finally fixed the market value of the properties in Ext.A3 and A4 at Rs.17,500/- per Are. Rs.17,500/- per Are has been fixed as the market value for superior property and that too three years after Section 4 (1) notification in this case. The counsel argued that the market value of the acquired properties in this appeal at the relevant time is far below Rs.17,500/-

¶32

Smt.Meera V.Menon, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions of Sri.Mathews K.Philip . She submitted that unlike the acquired properties in Exts.A3 and A4, which did not have road frontage, the acquired properties in this case was having pucca road frontage. The acquired property in this case, according to her, was far superior to the acquired property in Ext.A3 and A4. She would support

¶33

L.A.A..No.1244/2005

¶34

¶35

the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated in the judgment.

¶36

We have considered the rival submissions and we have scanned the records which are available. We are unable to accept the argument of Smt.Meera V.Menon that the acquired properties in Exts.A3 and A4 did not have any road frontage and that the properties in this case were having regular road frontage. Mahazar in this case shows that this property did not have frontage of pucca road: perhaps it has road access. Thus, we are fairly convinced that the acquired properties in Exts.A3 and A4, which were obviously nearer to the commercial areas of the Haripad Town was atleast slightly superior to the properties in this case. We also notice that Section 4 (1) notification in Exts.A3 and A4 was some three years subsequent to Section 4 (1) notification in this case. But, in the absence of any positive evidence adduced in this case showing the rate of escalation of land value during the three year period, we are not inclined to say that land value in the locality increased during the three year period. Having assessed the relevant plus and minus points of both these properties (the acquired property as well as the

¶37

L.A.A..No.1244/2005

¶38

¶39

property acquired in Exts.A3 and A4 ), we are of the view that the correct market value of the acquired property at the time of the relevant section 4 (1) notification in this case will be Rs.17,500/-.

¶40

The result of the above discussion is that allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal we refix the value of the acquired properties in this case at Rs.17,500/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the respondents claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which the respondents claimants become eligible on account of re-fixation as above.

¶41

The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in the circumstances, parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this appeal.

¶42

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶43

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶44

dpk

Telecom Department,Rep.by Dist.Manager v. G.Viswanathan Savitha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telecom Department,Rep.by Dist.Manager v. G.Viswanathan Savitha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Sugathan

P.J.Paul Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Moothatt Ramakrishnan

The General Manager, K.S.I.D.C. Tvm Vs Karayi Divakdran & Anothers

Pilakkal Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala,Rep.by Spl.Tahasildar Vs Sainudheen