Partly allowed

K.v.Suresh v. the Special Tahsildar (La)

Kerala HC19 Jan 2011LA.App./1110/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition appeal, the High Court rejected the claim for enhanced land value due to lack of evidence but, recognizing factual discrepancies in the structure valuation, awarded specific enhanced compensation for the structure while denying interest on the conceded delay period.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.63,750/- awarded for the structure; no enhancement in land value; denial of interest on enhanced compensation for the condoned period.

K.v.Suresh Vs the Special Tahsildar (La) — 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 1110 of 2010() -------------------------LAR.206/2000 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANTS.

¶5

¶6

K.V.SURESH, S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN, K.V.HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

K.V.RAMESH, S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN, K.V.HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

K.V.SUJATHA,D/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN, K.V.HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

K.V.AJITHA,D/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN, K.V.HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

K.V.SUJATH,S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN, K.V.HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

K.V.AJITH, S/O.LATE P.N.ACHUTHAN, K.V.HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------

¶13

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KANNUR.

¶14

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R1

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L.A.A.No. 1110 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶20

The claimants are in appeal. Their land with structure was acquired for the purpose of construction of Chovva – Nadal Bye

¶21

pass pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 1/11/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at

¶22

the rate of Rs.4,974/- per cent. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence, which was adduced by the parties, would refix the land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent. This was done mainly by relying on the court's own judgment in other cases pertaining to acquisition of identical lands for the same purpose. It was noticed by the Court below that it was taking into account Exts.A1 to A4 sale deeds relied on by the claimants that the

¶23

court had in those cases refixed the value of land at Rs.7,500/-

¶24

per cent. Ext.X1 commission report was another item of evidence relied on by the claimants. The commissioner had recommended for awarding Rs.25,000/- per cent as land

¶25

LAA.No.1110/2010

¶26

¶27

value. However, this recommendation of the commissioner was not supported by the value reflected in any sale document. The court below discarded the commission report and chose to fix the land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent as already stated.

¶28

In this appeal, the appellants claim enhanced land value as well as enhanced compensation towards value of the structure

¶29

which existed on the property. The learned counsel for the appellants would address arguments on the basis of the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. According to the learned counsel, the court below went wrong in discarding the commissioner's recommendations. The property was enjoying the direct frontage of Kuthuparamba – Kannur road and was situated within 300 meters from Thalassery – Kannur National Highway. The learned counsel would submit that the court below was not justified in not awarding any enhancement towards value of the structures.

¶30

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were resisted by Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned senior Government Pleader. According to him, there is no justification for granting any further enhancement towards land value as

¶31

LAA.No.1110/2010

¶32

¶33

there is no evidence to support the same.

¶34

Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed, we are of the view that in the absence of cogent evidence, the appellants cannot be awarded more land value than what is presently awarded under the impugned judgment. As already indicated, the Court below relied on its own judgment in other cases pertaining to the same acquisition. The value of Rs.7,500/- had been fixed by the Court below in those cases relying on Exts.A1 to A4. It is obvious that for those lands for which Rs.7,500/- was fixed by the Court below the same rate as in this case was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. That being the position, the appellants cannot have any legitimate claim for enhancement over and above Rs.7500/-.

¶35

It is true that the advocate commissioner's report had nothing to do with the value of the structures which existed on the property. However, we notice that the structure was valued by the PWD adopting the PWD's schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with the published rates of PWD is not a practical proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 30

¶36

LAA.No.1110/2010 4

¶37

to 35% above its own rates. Keeping that aspect of the matter in mind, we are inclined to award Rs.63,750/- to the appellants as enhanced compensation towards the structure which existed on the property. The above amount is accordingly awarded.

¶38

The appellants/claimants will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2) (231A) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, during the period of 2087 days condoned by our order in C.M.Appln. 1696/2010 this enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶39

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶40

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶41

dpk

K.v.Suresh v. the Special Tahsildar (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Suresh v. the Special Tahsildar (La)

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

Kunimal Parambath Preetha Vs State of Kerala

The National Thermal Power Corporation Vs Peethambaran

Sri.Kasim & Another Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Raju P.T. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Laila

Radhamony Amma Vs State of Kerala