Allowed

M/S.Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC7 Mar 2011LA.App./1161/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala increased the quantum of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. While dismissing the claim for 50% enhancement due to time passage, the Court relied on average market values from comparable awards to refix compensation at Rs.2,92,000 per are and allowed legal benefits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed to the extent of refixing the property value at Rs. 2,92,000 per are, and the appellant is directed to receive statutory benefits under the Act.

M/S.Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. 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

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 1161 of 2010()

¶6

-------------------------LAR.216/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR

¶7

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶8

¶9

M/S.KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD.(A GOVT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) P.B.NO.20, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O. - 683 573 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2

¶16

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

¶19

L.A.A.No. 1161 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 7th day of March , 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶23

The Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd., the claimant before the Reference Court, is in appeal. Their property in Angamaly village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23/7/2006 for the purpose of railways. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A2. The court below did not place reliance on Exts. A1 and A2. The court below practically placed reliance on the basis document and would increase the land value by 50% as if so much of increase is justified on account of passage of time.

¶24

As rightly submitted by the learned senior Government Pleader, Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, passage of time between the

¶25

LAA.No.1161/2010 2

¶26

basis document and the notification under Section 4(1) was two years. The maximum addition that could have been granted towards passage of time in this case was only 25% per year as the properties cannot be said to have been in the heart areas of Angamaly town.

¶27

Sri.K.Narayanan Parur learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the court below was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2. We find some force in the submission of Mr.Narayanan. Ext.A1 was the court judgment pertaining to acquisition of land in Angamaly village itself pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 1/11/2003. Under Ext.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.1,38,790/- per Are. The Reference Court under Ext.A1 would refix the land value at Rs.3,56,611/- per Are. Ext.A2 is yet another court judgment pertaining to acquisition of land in the same village pursuant to a notification published on 1/11/2004. Under Ext.A2, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value of Rs.2,03,555/- per Are and the court below refixed the same at Rs.4,95,401/- per Are. The question that arises for consideration is as to what extent Exts.A1 and A2 can be relied on. We notice that the

¶28

LAA.No.1161/2010

¶29

¶30

property under acquisition and the properties covered by Ext.A1 were situated in the same village and the distance between the properties was not much. It is seen from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer itself that the value of the acquired property was 80% of the value covered by Ext.A1 (as on the date of the present notification making due additions/deductions towards passage of time) even according to the award. Similarly, it is seen that the property covered by Ext.A2 was situated in the same village at a distance of some 350 meters from the acquired property. Going by the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values awarded for Ext.A2 property and the present property, the value of the present property could not have been more than 60% of Ext.A2 property. It is not disputed that Exts.A1 and A2 have attained finality. When the value of the acquired properties is calculated on the basis of Ext.A1, the same will come to Rs.2,85,288/-. Similarly, when value of the acquired properties calculated with reference to Ext.A2, the same will come to Rs.2,97,246/- per Are. We feel that it will be safer to take the average of the values of Exts.A1 and A2 for arriving at the market value of the

¶31

LAA.No.1161/2010

¶32

¶33

acquired property. The value of the property under acquisition will come to Rs.2,91,677/-, which we round off to Rs.2,92,000/per Are. Accordingly, we refix the value of the property under acquisition at Rs.2,92,000/- per Are.

¶34

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all 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 becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶35

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶36

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

dpk

M/S.Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another

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

State of Kerala Vs B.Radhamani

Managing Director, Ksidc Vs Paramban Vasu and Another

The Secretary, Hosdurg Service Co-Op.Ban Vs the Special Tahsildar and Others

State of Kerala Vs Saraswathi Pillai

Poulose Vs State of Kerala

John Mathew Vs Abdul Salim Sahib Riyaz Ahammed