Allowed

St.Mary'S Forine Church v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011LA.App./126/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the land acquisition appeal, refixing the market value of the property at Rs.85,000 per Are based on prior judgments. The court awarded Rs.15,000 for kaiyalas and mandated statutory benefits under relevant sections without interest for a delayed period.

What did the court decide?

Market value refixed at Rs.85,000/- per Acre; Rs.15,000 awarded for kaiyalas; decree to include conditions on interest.

St.Mary'S Forine Church Vs State of Kerala — 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 TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 126 of 2011() -------------------------

¶4

(LAR N.144/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, PALA)

¶5

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶6

¶7

TRUSTEE, ST.MARY'S FORINE CHURCH, BHARANANGANAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

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

¶15

L.A.A.No. 126 OF 2011

¶16

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2011

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶19

As directed by us Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned senior

¶20

Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the Government and we have heard the submissions of Sri.T.I.Abdul Salam, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned Government Pleader.

¶21

Our attention is drawn by Mr.Abdul Salam to the common judgment of this court in L.A.A. Nos.1012/2009 series and to the judgment in L.A.A. No.751/2009. The learned counsel has placed before us copies of the above judgments. On going through the above judgments, we are convinced that those judgments pertain to acquisition of identical property for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. We find that under those judgments, the market value of identical lands has

¶22

been refixed by this court at Rs.85,000/- per Are. In fact in L.A.A No.751/2009, the appellant was none other than the

¶23

LAA.No.126/2011 2

¶24

appellant herein and the properties were also lying contiguously. Relying on the above judgment, we allow the appeal to the extent of refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.85,000/- per Are.

¶25

Mr.Abdul Salam would draw our attention to Ext.C1 commission report and argue that a further amount of Rs..77616/- be awarded towards compensation for kaiyalas which existed on the property under acquisition. According to him, so much amount would be necessary for constructing new kaiyalas so as to prevent soil erosion in the reminder properties belonging to the appellant church. We were taken through the advocate commissioner's report by Mr.Abdul Salam.

¶26

Even though Mr.Salam was very appealing in his submissions, we are not inclined to accept the commissioner's report and award what is recommended by the commissioner to the appellant. According to us, there is no justification for awarding anything more than Rs.15,000/- to the appellant church towards kaiyalas in question. We award to the appellant Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the kaiyalas.

¶27

The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits

¶28

LAA.No.126/2011 3

¶29

admissible under Section 23 (2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. The Section, while drafting the decree, will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us by our order dated 27/1/2011 in C.M.Appln.196/2011. In other words, it should be clarified in the decree that during the period condoned by us, the compensation will not carry interest under Section 28.

¶30

The appeal is allowed as above. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the entire court fee is paid and that the conditions imposed by us on the delay petition i.e. payment of cost is complied with.

¶31

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶32

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶33

dpk

St.Mary'S Forine Church v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Mary'S Forine Church 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

Fathima Vs P.v.Paulose

Rajan Babu Vs Viswanatha Pillai

Panayan Rajan Vs Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin

Scientific&Industrial Research Director Vs a.R.Padmini Bai

State of Kerala Vs Bhasura Devi

State of Kerala Vs P.Sadasivan