Allowed

Venkiteswara Prabhu (Died) v. the Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC2 Jun 2010LA.App./965/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a land acquisition appeal concerning wet land in Tripunithura. The court re-fixed the market value at Rs.43,300 per Are by applying a ratio to a comparable Category-2 property, rejecting the lower court's generic 35% enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Market value re-fixed at Rs.43,300 per Are; entitlement to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28.

Venkiteswara Prabhu (Died) Vs the Special Tahsildar — Specific Performance | 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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 965 of 2008 (A)

¶6

------------------------------LAR.257/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS IN LAR NO.257/06 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, EKM:

¶8

¶9

MR. A.R. VENKITESWARA PRABU (DIED),

¶10

MRS. PREMA AGED 78 YEARS, W/O MR. A.R. VENKITESWARA PRABHU, BALAJI BHAVAN, TRIPUNITHURA, THAMARANKULANGARA ROAD,

¶11

MR.GOPINATH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O MR. A.R. VENKITESWARA PRABHU, BALAJI BHAVAN, TRIPUNITHURA, THAMARANKULANAGARA ROAD.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH FRANKLIN

¶13

SMT.NIMMI FRANKLIN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS LAR NO.257/06 OF SUB COURT, EKM:

¶15

¶16

THE SPECIAL TAHZILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

THE DPEUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN SRI.M.C.CHERIAN, SC, RAILWAYS

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

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

¶21

L. A. A. No.965 of 2008

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶25

The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was

¶26

of the land in Nadama village obviously within the limits of Tripunithura Municipal Town. The land was wet land with Railway frontage included in category-8 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 17/11/04. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.25,584/- per Are. Before the Reference Court the tangible item of evidence produced by the claimant was Ext.A1 document in respect of

¶27

L. A. A. No.965 of 2008

¶28

-2-

¶29

the property in the same village transacted in 1999, much before the Section 4(1) notification. The appellant/claimant had taken out a commission. But he never wanted the Commissioner to inspect Ext.A1 property and compare the same with the property under acquisition. For this reason and for the reason that there is no comparison between the land covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired property, the learned Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 at all. Ultimately what the learned Judge did was to apply the rule of thumb, grant enhancement at 35% and re-fix the market value at Rs.35,000/- per Are.

¶30

We have heard the submissions of Sri.Joseph Franklin, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of Mr.M.C.Cheriyan, the

¶31

L. A. A. No.965 of 2008

¶32

-3-

¶33

learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. We heard the learned Government Pleader also. Our attention was drawn by Mr.Franklin to Ext.A1 who submitted that some reliance could be placed on Ext.A1 which reflects a land value of Rs.72,000/per cent. According to him, though the nature of the property is different since properties are situated in the same village not far away from each other, appropriate deductions can be made on the value reflected in Ext.A1. Sri.M.C.Cheriyan would oppose the suggestion highlighting that the claimant did not request for a comparison of Ext.A1 property with the acquired property at all by the Commissioner.

¶34

We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have

¶35

L. A. A. No.965 of 2008

¶36

-4-

¶37

gone through Ext.A1 very carefully. We are convinced that if Ext.A1 property was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for this purpose that property would have been included in category-2 for which the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.95,301/- per Are. Since Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition were lying within the same local area, we are of the view that there should be some corelation between the values of these properties. We find that under the award the ratio between the value of properties in category-2 and category-8 in which the appellant's property is included is 100:26. We are not inclined to grant precisely 26% of the value reflected in Ext.A1 to the appellants. We notice that the property under

¶38

L. A. A. No.965 of 2008

¶39

-5-

¶40

acquisition was paddy field under cultivation and the property was situated by the side of the Railway line which in our opinion is a minus factor. However, relying on Ext.A1 itself, we feel that the market value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs.17,500/- per cent corresponding to Rs.43,296/- per Are. This we round off to Rs.43,300/- per Are. Thus, we re-fix the value of land under acquisition in this case at Rs.43,300/per Are.

¶41

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. Parties

¶42

L. A. A. No.965 of 2008

¶43

-6-

¶44

are however directed to suffer their respective

¶45

costs in the appeal.

¶46

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶47

C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶48

kns/-

Venkiteswara Prabhu (Died) v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkiteswara Prabhu (Died) v. the Special Tahsildar

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

Kerala Sarvodaya Sangam Kozhikode Vs Sara Varghese

P.K.Moideenkutty Haji Vs Mundakkattil Kunhammed

Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ammini Karnan

Kerala State Election Commission Vs v.Velappan Nair

Airport Director Vs Dr.Op.Kunhalankutty

Thottupadath Valappil Ashraf & Another Vs District Collector & Others