Allowed

Neelakandan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2011LA.App./1158/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court corrected the compensation for injurious affection awarded in a land acquisition case involving a residential building. The court increased the award to Rs.50,000, with specific instructions regarding interest and statutory benefits under Section 28.

What did the court decide?

Appellant awarded a further sum of Rs.30,000; total compensation fixed at Rs.50,000 inclusive of previous award.

Neelakandan Nair 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 &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932

¶6

LA.App..No. 1158 of 2010()

¶7

-------------------------LAR.78/2006 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

¶9

¶10

NEELAKANDAN NAIR , S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, THRIKKALATHUR,MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD, KSTP, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1-2

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

¶19

L.A.A.No. 1158 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 17^h day of February, 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶23

This appeal is confined to the appellant's claim for further compensation for injurious affection of his residential building which is not acquired. What is acquired is only the front yard of the building. It is evident that due to the acquisition, the building has been completely deprived of any front yard. The learned Subordinate Judge herself noticed that the value of the residential building, which is not acquired, has been reduced and awarded Rs.20,000/- towards injurious affection.

¶24

Having gone through the judgment and having considered the rival submissions addressed before us by Sr.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned senior Government Pleader and having applied our mind to the items of evidence, to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel, we feel that correct compensation payable to the appellant towards injurious affection of his residential building due to the acquisition has to be fixed at Rs.50,000/- inclusive of the amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶25

L.A.A.No.1158/2010 2

¶26

awarded by the court below. It is accordingly refixed. The appellant is awarded a further sum of Rs..30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the court below. This amount will carry the statutory benefits admissible under Section 28 of the Act and not the benefits admissible under Section 23(2) and 23 (1A). While providing the benefit under Section 28, the Registry should have due regard to the conditions imposed by this court in its order in C.M.Appln.1799/2010 condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal. Provision shall not be made for interest under Section 28 during the period of delay condoned by this court. It should also be ensured that the other conditions imposed by this court for condoning the delay have been complied with and the full court fee is remitted by the appellant.

¶27

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶28

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶29

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

dpk

L.A.A.No.1158/2010 3

L.A.A.No.1158/2010

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

¶35

C.M.Appln.1799 /2010 in L.A.A.No. 1158 OF 2010

¶36

Dated this the 21^th day of January, 2011

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶39

Heard both sides. The delay will stand condoned subject to

¶40

the following conditions;

¶41

i). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the

¶42

Government through the office of the Advocate General within ten days from today.

¶43

ii). The appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to

¶44

the High Court Legal Services Committee also within the same time limit.

¶45

Iii). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise

¶46

L.A.A.No.1158/2010

¶47

¶48

admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 678 days condoned by this order.

¶49

Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in

¶50

the appeal.

¶51

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶52

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶53

dpk

Neelakandan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelakandan Nair 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Chacko C.NO.3722, George Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kurup Janardhana Kurup Vs State of Kerala

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji Vs the Special Deputy Collector (La)

T.P.Satheesan Pillai Vs v.a.Noorjahan

State of Kerala,Rep.by Spl.Tahsildar Vs K.Appukuttan Pillai