Allowed

Rani Romal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2011LA.App./1110/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an acquisition appeal against the land and compensation fixed at an inadequate rate. The Court refixed the land value based on a relevant precedent while rejecting an unverified prior document and upheld the compensation for improvements.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; land value refixed at Rs. 1,23,500 per Are; entitlement to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(IA) and 28 of the L.A. Act preserved.

Rani Romal Vs State of Kerala — 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 MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 1110 of 2009() ----------------------------------LAR.186/2007 of SUB COURT, PALA ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT :-

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

RANI ROMAL, W/O.ROMAL JOSE, PADINJARE KARA HOUSE, PALA P.O., KIZHATHADIYOOR KARA.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SHEEJA SRI.K.J.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :-

¶10

---------------------------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

jvt

¶15

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

¶16

L.A.A. No.1110 of 2009

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of January 2011

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶20

The claimant is in appeal. Her land situated in Lalam village within the area of Pala Municipality was acquired by the Government pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 30.6.2004 for the purpose of up-gradation of EttumanoorPoonjar State Highway. The land was dry in nature. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.16,235/per Are. For the improvements such as compound wall, Rs.325/- was awarded and Rs.7677/- was awarded as value of structures. Before the Reference Court it was Ext.A1 document, a pre-notification document pertaining to a property situated just 100 metres away from the acquired property that the party relied on mostly. Ext.A1 reflected a

¶21

L.A.A. No.1110 of 2009

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

land value of Rs.1 lakh per cent. The learned Sub Judge did not place reliance on Ext.A1 for two reasons. One reason was that to the suggestion made in cross-examination that Ext.A1 was purchased by paying a fancy price, the claimant did not give an answer. The second reason was that proof regarding Ext.A1 was only the oral evidence of AW1. The claimant was not in a party to Ext.A1. After discarding Ext.A1 what the learned Sub Judge did was to rely on his own judgment in L.A.R.No.171/07 and refix the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Are. For the compound wall and other improvements the learned Sub Judge relied on the Commissioner's report and would award a total amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-. In this appeal, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court.

¶24

Smt.C.S.Sheeja, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments extensively on the basis of the grounds. All the submissions of Smt.Sheeja were

¶25

L.A.A. No.1110 of 2009

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

forcefully resisted by Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Smt.Sheeja drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.177/2001 which was in respect of much earlier acquisition pertaining to land situated not far away from the acquired property. Relying on that judgment, Smt.Sheeja submitted that the land value may be refixed at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. In this connection, we notice the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.751/2009 and this was acquisition of property in Bharananganam village acquired for the same purpose. The above acquisition was more or less at the same time. Under that judgment for properties in Bharananganam village this Court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per Are.

¶28

Smt.Sheeja's request before us is that we would rely on Ext.A1 and award atleast Rs.1 lakh per cent. We are not inclined to accept the above request. According to us, in the absence of proper proof regarding the circumstances

¶29

L.A.A. No.1110 of 2009

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

under which Ext.A1 was executed it is not safe to rely on Ext.A1. At the same time, we feel on re-appreciation of the evidence on record the land value at the rate of Rs.50,000/per Are presently fixed in the impugned judgment is inadequate. Ofcourse, this Court has clarified that the judgment in L.A.R.No.171/2007 will not be a precedent for other cases. According to us the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.751/2009 has considerable probative value in this case. Bharananganam has become very famous due to the canonisation of Saint Alphonsa. The value of land in Pala municipal town is undoubtedly much more than the value of land in Bharananganam. Taking note of the judgment in L.A.A.No.751/2009, we feel that there is justification for refixing the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.50,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs.1,23,500/- per Are. It is accordingly refixed. As for the compensation awarded by the court below for the improvements, we are of the view that the same is reasonable and does not warrant for any

¶32

L.A.A. No.1110 of 2009

¶33

-: 5 :-

¶34

interference.

¶35

The appeal is allowed refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1,23,500/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible to her under Sections 23(2), 23(IA) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶36

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶37

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶38

Jvt

Rani Romal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Romal v. State of Kerala

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

Mini Varghese Vs M.G.Kurian (Died)

Soly John Vs a.J.John

C.v.Siraj Vs Kolathayi Puthiyapurayil Ayisha

Chittilappilly Charities Vs the District Collector

Kunju Moideen Vs Muhammed Vadakkedathu

N.P.Asma Vs Special Tahsildar