Allowed

Arayakandy Udayakumar v. the Special Tahsildar, La, Kannur

Kerala HC25 Jan 2011LA.App./1069/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals preferred by claimants challenging the valuation of acquired lands for a byepass. The Court re-fixed the land value uniformly at Rs.10,200 per cent for both wet and reclaimed wet lands, rejecting arguments for differentiated rates based on earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Re-fixed value of land under acquisition at Rs.10,200/- per cent; enhanced compensation calculated on this basis.

Arayakandy Udayakumar Vs the Special Tahsildar, La, Kannur — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No.1069 of 2005 (B) -------------------------------LAR.149/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT

¶5

¶6

ARAYAKANDY UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.C.K.KUNHIRAMAN, KARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.THAZHA CHOVVA, KUZHUTHALLY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, L.A.KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU

¶10

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, A/W LAA.1081/05, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶12

L. A. A. Nos.1069 & 1081 of 2005

¶13

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2011

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶16

Both these appeals are preferred by the claimants. Their

¶17

lands treated by the Land Acquisition Officer as wet land and reclaimed wet lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Chovva-Nadal byepass. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent uniformly. The court below under the impugned judgment has refixed value of reclaimed wet lands at Rs.7,500/- per cent (the property in LAA.1081/05) and that of wet lands (LAA.1069/05) at Rs.1,500/- per cent. One of the grounds urged in these appeals is that the court below went wrong in awarding two different rates for these properties ignoring the fact that the Land Acquisition

¶18

Officer had awarded the same rate despite the difference in

¶19

nature of the land. It is urged that the court below ought not

¶20

L. A. A. Nos.1069 & 1081 of 2005 -2-

¶21

have ignored Ext.A5 judgment under which land value has been fixed at Rs.15,000/- per cent. It is pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded value of land at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent for the properties in that case. It is further urged that at any rate, Exts.A1, A2 and A4 documents, all of which are pre-notification documents reflecting value ranging up to Rs.30,000/- per cent could have been relied on. It is also urged that Ext.A3 fair value order published by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery fixing the value of the property in the same survey number at Rs.25,000/- per cent should not have been ignored.

¶22

We have heard submissions of Sri.C.Vathsalan, the

¶23

learned counsel for the appellants and those of Smt.R.Bindu, the learned senior Government Pleader. Sri.Vathsalan would draw our attention first to the judgment of this Court in LAA.1508/05 to which one among us [PCK(J)] is party. It is submitted that the properties in that case for which this Court has re-fixed the value

¶24

L. A. A. Nos.1069 & 1081 of 2005 -3-

¶25

at Rs.28,343/- per cent is situated very near to the properties in this case. Counsel referred to Exts.A1, A2, A3, A4 and 5 also and submitted that the appeal be allowed in full and the uniform rate of Rs.15,000/- be awarded for the properties under acquisition. Smt.R.Bindu, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the judgment in LAA.1508/05 cannot be relied on at all as it is very clearly stated in that judgment itself that the same will not be a precedent for any other case pertaining to any other acquisition. According to Smt.Bindu, the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for not relying upon Exts.A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 are excellent reasons. She, however, herself brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in LAA.1097/05 under which this Court has approved the value of Rs.10,200/- per cent for property which seem to be comparable. But the learned Government Pleader pointed out that in this case as the properties in the two cases are different in nature one being wet and the other being reclaimed wet, uniform rate cannot be

¶26

L. A. A. Nos.1069 & 1081 of 2005 -4-

¶27

granted.

¶28

We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not at all inclined to rely on the judgment of this Court in LAA.1508/05 as the judgment itself makes it clear that the same will not be a precedent for any other case. We are in agreement with the learned senior Government Pleader when she submits that Exts.A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 have been discarded by the court below on good reasons. When all the above items are eschewed, the surviving item is only the judgment of this Court in LAA.1097/05 brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader herself. It is seen that under that judgment the value of comparable land has been re-fixed at Rs.10,200/- per cent. Then the only question is whether the same rate should be uniformly given for the properties involved in these two appeals. We are of the view that same rate can be given as the Land Acquisition Officer had given the same rate notwithstanding the difference in the nature of the properties.

¶29

L. A. A. Nos.1069 & 1081 of 2005 -5-

¶30

The result of the above discussion is that both these

¶31

appeals will stand allowed to the extent of re-fixing the value of land under acquisition in these cases at Rs.10,200/- per cent. Enhanced compensation will be calculated on this basis. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits also. The parties will suffer their respective costs.

¶32

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶33

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶34

kns/-

Arayakandy Udayakumar v. the Special Tahsildar, La, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arayakandy Udayakumar v. the Special Tahsildar, La, Kannur

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

The Secy. Koyilandy Municipality Vs M.M.M. Mariyakutty Umma

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Alphonsa Cardoz

Vilasini Sivan and Others Vs the Special TAHSILAR,L.A.NO.1, Kinfra

P.Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Kochi Refineries Ltd.,(Now Bharat Petrol Vs Paulose and Another

State of Kerala Vs Sri.Varkey