Allowed

T.K.Sujan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2011LA.App./1321/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal, refixing the market value of the land to Rs. 13,500/- per cent by relying on a prior judgment. The claimant is entitled to statutory benefits under the Act, subject to conditions regarding the calculation of interest periods.

What did the court decide?

Artificial refixation of market value of land to Rs. 13,500/- per cent and entitlement to statutory benefits under specific Sections of the Act, subject to drafting conditions.

T.K.Sujan 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 THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 1321 of 2010() -------------------------LAR.70/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶5

¶6

T.K.SUJAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KIZHAKKE BHAVAN, MULLUVILACHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT 'SUMANGALI', SNEHADHARA NAGAR, IRAVIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUMUKKU, KOLLAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN

¶10

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

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

¶12

L.A.A.No. 1321 OF 2010

¶13

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT

¶14

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶15

The claimant is in appeal. The properties under acquisition was in Vadakkevila Village within the area of the Kollam Corporation. The purpose of the acquisition was construction of Kollam Bye pass. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 31/8/1989. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.3713/- per cent. The Reference Court, on evaluating the evidence that was adduced by the parties, granted enhancement by 60%.

¶16

In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court. Sri.T.K.Ajan, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. The learned counsel drew our attention to Annexure -2 Judgment of this Court in L.A.A. No.642/2004 and connected matters. He submitted that under that judgment, the value of lands in category 2 (identical to the properties under acquisition) has been refixed by this court at Rs.13,500/- per

¶17

L.A.A.No.1321/2010 2

¶18

cent. According to him, as those cases pertaining to acquisition pursuant to a notification in 1988, this Court may give additions at the rate of 15% per year and refix the land value accordingly.

¶19

Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned senior Government Pleader would oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Annexure A2. He supported the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. He submitted that Annexure 2 also covers one case pertaining to the same Section 4 (1) notification.

¶20

Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that, in as much as Annexure 2 has attained finality, we are justified in relying on Annexure 2. We notice that Annexure 2 deals with the various

¶21

cases including one case where the date of Section 4(1) notification is the same as the present case. Hence, in our view the appellant cannot aspire for more than what is granted to category 2 properties under acquisition. Relying on Annexure 2, we allow the appeal and refix the market value of the land under Acquisition t Rs.13,500/- per cent.

¶22

L.A.A.No.1321/2010

¶23

¶24

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, while drafting the decree, the Registry will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this court in C.M.Appln. No.2180/2010 and will not reckon the period of 1745 days condoned by that order for the purpose of Section 28 of the Act.

¶25

In the circumstances, both sides are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶26

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶27

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶28

dpk

T.K.Sujan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Sujan 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

P.K.Geetha Vs Special Tahsildar L.A

Inland Waterways Auhority of India Vs Geetha and Another

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Mahilamony and Others

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.K.Saibunniza Vs M/S.Malabar Pioneer Hosiery Pvt. Ltd.