Allowed

State of Kerala v. Shyla Beegum

Kerala HC13 Aug 2010LA.App./391/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal against the award of compensation but re-fixed the market value at Rs.1 lakh per Are based on property advantages. The court clarified that compensation for injurious affection and shifting charges does not attract statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The market value of the land is re-fixed at Rs.1 lakh per Are. The award for injurious affection and shifting charges is not affected, but clarification is given that such compe

State of Kerala Vs Shyla Beegum — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶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 FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 391 of 2009(C) ------------------------------LAR.91/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶5

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶6

¶7

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS

¶11

¶12

SHYLA BEEGUM,SUNITHA MANZIL, CHEMMANNU VILA,AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM,VENGANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

AMEER HAMZA,SUNITHA MANZIL, CHEMMANNU VILA,AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM,VENGANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1-2

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L. A. A. No.391 of 2009

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of August, 2010

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶21

We find much force in the submissions of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader that the issue raised in this appeal by the Government is covered in favour of the Government by judgment of this Court in L.A.A.376/09. According to her, if that judgment is followed, the maximum value that can be granted is only Rs.98,000/-. But as rightly argued by Sri.R.Manoj, the learned counsel for the respondent the property under acquisition was enjoying certain advantages which the property in L.A.A.376/09 did not have. Taking into account those advantages, we are inclined to re-fix the market value of land under acquisition in this case at Rs.1 lakh per Are.

¶22

L. A. A. No.391 of 2009 -2We are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation for injurious affection or towards shifting charges. However, it appears that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed a mistake in reckoning the compensation for injurious affection and shifting charges also for the purpose of awarding statutory benefit. It is clarified that the compensation for injurious affection and the shifting charges will not carry statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶23

The appeal will stand allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.

¶24

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶25

C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶26

kns/-

State of Kerala v. Shyla Beegum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Shyla Beegum

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

State of Kerala Vs Santhamma

State of Kerala Vs Fathima

State of Kerala Vs M.Rahim and Another

M.K.Abdul Kader Vs Islahi Charitable Trust

S.v.P.Pookkoya and Others Vs the Chief Executive Officer/Secretary

Special Deputy Collector (La), Kozhikode Vs Sathish Chandra Das