Allowed

Radhamony Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2011LA.App./1136/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these land acquisition appeals, the Court ordered a refixation of land values from land to a higher figure per are based on the relief found in the judgment. The Court allowed the appeals and awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants who sought to set up an expansion programme of composite group and IISU of ISRO.

What did the court decide?

Refixed the value of lands at Rs. 2,91,420/- or Rs. 2,33,140/- per are and awarded statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A), and 28 of the L.A. Act.

Radhamony Amma Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932

¶6

LA.App..No. 1136 of 2010(D)

¶7

--------------------------LAR.49/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶8

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶9

¶10

RADHAMONY AMMA, D/O.SAROJINI AMMA, LATHIKA NIVAS, RANDAMADA, CHITRA NAGAR, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE CHIEF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO.1138/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

¶19

L.A.A..Nos. 1136, 1137,1138 & 1140 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶23

All these appeals are preferred by the claimants whose lands in Peroorkada Village of Thiruvananthapuram District were acquired for the purpose of setting up of expansion programe of composite group and IISU of ISRO. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 22/4/2004.

¶24

The Land Acquisition Officer included the property involved in L.A.A. No.1136/2010 in Group H. But, the Reference Court upgraded the category of that property to Group D. As regards that upgradation, there is no challenge by the Government or the requisitioning authority. We therefore proceed on the basis that property in L.A.A. No.1136/2010 is eligible to be included in category D.

¶25

The properties involved in L.A.A. Nos.1137/2010 and

¶26

LAA.Nos.1136/2010 & others 2

¶27

1138/2010 were included by the Land Acquisition Officer himself in Category D whereas the property involved in L.A.A. No.1140/2010 were included by the Land Acquisition Officer and by the Reference Court in Category E. For properties involved in category D, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.25,858/- per Are. For properties involved in category E, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.20,687/- per Are. Under the impugned judgments, the properties in Category E have been awarded value at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per Are and the value of the properties in category D have been awarded value at the rate of Rs.73,740/- per Are.

¶28

In these appeals various grounds have been raised contending that the value refixed by the Court below is insufficient. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Ram Mohan.G learned counsel for the appellants and also those of Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the requisitioning authority. We have heard Smt. R.Bindu, learned senior Government Pleader also and she is supported by Sri.IbrahimKhan in all her submissions.

¶29

Mr.Ram Mohan would place strong reliance on the

¶30

LAA.Nos.1136/2010 & others 3

¶31

judgments of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.411/2010, 355/2010 & L.A.A. No.273/2010. The learned counsel placed before us copies of the above judgments. Having gone through those judgments, we find that court has either refixed or has granted approval to refixation of value of the properties acquired for the same purpose and situated in the same village at much higher rates than what is presently awarded. On the basis of refixation approved by this court under those judgments, we are inclined to refix the value of lands under acquisition in these appeals. When that is so done, the value of the lands involved in L.A.A. Nos.1136/2010, 1137/2010 and 1138/2010 will have to be refixed at Rs.2,91,420/- per Are. It is accordingly refixed.

¶32

Similarly it will become necessary to refix the value of land involved in L.A.A. Nos.1140/2010 at Rs.2,33,145/- per Are. The value of land in that case is refixed accordingly at Rs.2,33,145/- .

¶33

All the appeals are allowed to the above extent. The appellants will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue

¶34

LAA.Nos.1136/2010 & others 4

¶35

of this judgment. However, interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 will not be allowed to the appellants during the period of delay which has been condoned by this court by separate orders in C.M.Appln. Nos.1752/2010, 1756/2010, 1757/2010 & 1761/2010. The Registry will take due note of the orders passed by this court in the delay petitions in these appeals while preparing the decree. It will also be ensured by the Registry before issuing the certified copy of the decree, that all the conditions imposed on the delay petitions have been complied with and that balance court fee is remitted in full.

¶36

Even though Mr.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants sought for award of enhanced compensation towards value of the coconut trees which stood on the properties, we are not persuaded to give any such further award.

¶37

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶38

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶39

dpk

Radhamony Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamony Amma 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

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

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