Allowed

K.v.Gouri v. the Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC3 Mar 2011LA.App./111/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the lower court's compensation assessment unsafe due to a procedurally improper commission report. The High Court re-fixed land value at Rs.1,620 per cent and awarded timber value of Rs.1,000 per tree for bearing rubber trees, allowing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Compensation re-fixed at Rs.1,620 per cent; timber value awarded at Rs.1,000 per tree; statutory benefits under Sections 23, 23(1A), and 28 allowed.

K.v.Gouri Vs the Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 111 of 2004(C) ---------------------------------LAR.379/1997 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY ....................

¶3

APPELLANT(S): SUPPL. CLAIMANTS 2 TO 10

¶4

¶5

K.V.GOURI, W/O. LATE K.P.ACHUTHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT VAYALIL HOUSE, POST MOORIYAD, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶6

K.V.SURESH BABU S/O. DO. , AGED 45 YEARS BUSINESS, RESIDING AT DO.DO.DO.

¶7

K.V.RAGINI, D/O. DO., AGED 43 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, DO.DO.DO.

¶8

K.V.SANTHINI, D/O. DO., AGED 41 YEARS, TEACHER, DO.DO.DO.

¶9

K.V.HAREESH BABU, S/O. DO. AGED 39 YEARS BUSINESS, DO.DO.DO.

¶10

K.V.PRASEENA D/O. DO. AGED 37 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, DO.DO.DO.

¶11

K.V.ROSHINI, D/O. DO., AGED 35 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, DO.DO.DO.

¶12

K.V.RASNA, D/O. DO., AGED 33 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, DO.DO.DO.

¶13

K.V.RAJESG BABU, S/O. DO., AGED 30 YEARS NO OCCUPATION, DO. DO. DO.

¶14

(APPELLANTS ARE THE L.RS. OF DECEASED 1ST CLAIMANT IN THE LAR)

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN

¶16

SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

¶17

LA.App..No. 111 of 2004(C)

¶18

-2-

¶19

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A., THALASSERY.

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI,SC,KSIDC SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI FOR R2

¶24

SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO FOR R2

¶25

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.112 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

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

¶27

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004

¶28

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Balakrishnan, J

¶31

The claimants are in appeal. Their lands lying contiguously in Manantheri village of Kuthuparamba were acquired for the purpose of constructing an Industrial Growth Centre by the KSIDC.

¶32

In L.A.A.112/04, an extent of 7.26 Acres of

¶33

claimants' land was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26/05/95. For the aforesaid 7.26 Acres (the area covered with bearing rubber trees and the remaining area as dry land), the Land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.250/- per cent. Adopting capitalization method Rs.7,36,252/- was awarded

¶34

by the Land Acquisition Officer for bearing tapping Rubber

¶35

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004 -2-

¶36

Trees. Besides towards value of non-bearing trees Rs.1,896/- was also awarded.

¶37

The appellants contended that the court below did not properly consider Exts.A3 and A5 documents which were pre-notification documents reflecting a centage value of Rs.6,000/-. Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Ext.A5 is a document of 1992 whereas the notification was in May 1995. Therefore, the Reference Court should have taken note of the passage of time of three years also and so, the Reference Court should have granted more than Rs.6,000/- per cent shown in Ext.A5 document.

¶38

Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority would submit that Ext.A5 was only in respect of 23.25 cents of land whereas the land acquired from the claimant in L.A.A.112/04 is 7.26 Acres. Hence, considering the fact that Ext.A5 was in respect of a smaller

¶39

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004 -3-

¶40

extent of land and considering further that it was not similarly situated the land value reflected in Ext.A5 cannot be the basis for fixing the land value in L.A.A.112/04. Admittedly Ext.A6 is a post notification document and as such, the value shown therein at Rs.6,500/- per cent cannot

¶41

be the basis for fixing the land value.

¶42

Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the claimants has also drawn our attention to the Commission Report where the Commissioner has assessed

¶44

the yield from Rubber Trees. It is stated that test tapping was also conducted by the Advocate Commissioner. Moreover, the evidence given by an officer of the Rubber Board was also relied upon. It was also stated that the claimants had actually availed of loan from the Rubber Board for development of the Rubber plantation. However, it was noticed that the Advocate Commissioner has adopted 20 as the multiplier. Besides, the Commissioner has

¶45

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004 -4-

¶46

deducted only 15% towards maintenance charges. Learned Subordinate Judge has found that the yield and income estimated by the Advocate Commissioner is an exaggerated one. Not only that it is submitted by Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority that the Advocate Commissioner has conducted test tapping of only about 10 trees. The value fixed by the Advocate Commissioner adopting capitalisation method did not inspire the learned Subordinate Judge.

¶47

We have gone through the Commission Report. We also find that the procedure adopted by the Advocate Commissioner is not proper and so it is unsafe to act upon that report to determine the just compensation payable to the claimants.

¶48

Since we are not inclined to accept the Commission Report, the only other way is to re-fix the land value on centage basis. Though Ext.A5 is in respect of a smaller

¶49

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004 -5-

¶50

extent of land, we find that we can get some idea regarding the land value prevailing in that locality. The further fact that there was passage of time of three years also has to be borne in mind.

¶51

Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader would submit that in similar matters, the land value was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- only. Sri.Joby Cyriac would submit that in some other matters, the land value was fixed at Rs.1,500/-. Considering Exts.A3 and A5, we find that it is just and proper to hold that the value of land would be at least Rs.1,800/- per cent. But at the same time, considering the largeness of the area acquired, 10% has to be deducted therefrom. So much so, the centage value would come to Rs.1,620/-. Land value has to be re-fixed accordingly.

¶52

Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that towards timber value only a sum of

¶53

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004 -6-

¶54

Rs.1,896/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and no enhancement was awarded by the Reference Court. It is submitted that one rubber tree would fetch at least Rs.2,000/- as timber value. But it is of mention that the acquisition was in 1995. We find that timber value of a tree can be fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000/-. It was submitted that the total number of rubber trees for which timber value is to be given was 387. So much so, the total timber value of 387 rubber trees would come to Rs.3,87,000/-. It is noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer while computing the compensation has adopted capitalisation method and following the same Rs.7,36,252/- was awarded. Since the compensation has been determined by us adopting land value only (on centage basis), the claimant is not entitled to get the aforesaid sum of Rs.7,36,252/-. Thus, compensation is re-determined fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1620/- per cent in respect of the entire acquired land

¶55

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004 -7-

¶56

admeasuring 7.26 Acres. Besides, the claimant will be getting Rs.3,87,000/- as timber value. L.A.A.112/04 is allowed to the above extent only.

¶57

In L.A.A.111/04, the total extent of property acquired was 99.26 cents. It is stated to be lying adjacent to the property in LAA.112/04. The total amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.4,76,322/- out of which Rs.3,00,969/- was fixed on the head of improvement value. Since in this case also we are not inclined to accept the commission report for the reasons already stated, we redetermine the compensation adopting land value only. As stated earlier, here also the land value has to be given at the rate of Rs.1,620/-. It was submitted that there were 220 rubber trees for which the claimant is entitled to get timber value at the rate of Rs.1,000/-. Thus, towards timber value the claimant will be getting a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. LAA.111/04 is allowed re-fixing the land value at the rate of

¶58

L. A. A. Nos.111 & 112 of 2004

¶59

-8-

¶60

Rs.1,620/-. Over and above the land value, the claimant will be entitled to get Rs.2,20,000/- as the timber value of the rubber trees. The appeal is allowed to that extent.

¶61

Claimants in both the appeals are also entitled to

¶62

get statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Acts. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶63

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶64

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶65

kns/-

K.v.Gouri v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Gouri 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

Sarojini Ramadevi Vs State of Kerala

V.Krishnan Asari Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Margret Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Soj, S/O.Kamalolbhavan Vs State of Kerala

General Manager Vs K.K. Abdul Majeed

State Vs Devaki Amma