Allowed

Lakshmi Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2011LA.App./160/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal and refixed the market value of wet land acquired for the ICTT project at Rs.47,000/- per cent, relying on a subsequent judgment (LAA 1332/10), amidst arguments regarding the inadequacy of the reference court's valuation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; market value refixed at Rs.47,000/- per cent; appellant entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Lakshmi Karthikeyan 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 MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

LA.App..No. 160 of 2011() ------------------------------------(LAR 166/08 OF III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM) ........

¶5

APPELLANT(S): 7TH CLAIMANT:

¶6

----------------------------------------------LAKSHMI KARTHIKEYAN, D/O.KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREE GOVINDAM, AYYAPPANKAVU, KOCHI - 18.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SRI.VIVEK.M.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶9

----------------------------------------------------

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), I.C.T.T.VALLARPADAM, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, W.ISLAND, KOCHI - 3.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA R2 BY ADVS. SRI. K.K.M.SHERIFF, SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSEFF.

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 160 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2011.

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶18

The claimant is in appeal. Her wet lands in Mulavaukadu village were acquired for the purpose of four line connectivity to the ICTT at Vallarpadom. The above acquisition was pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 29.3.05. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,852/- per Are. Before the Reference Court reliance was placed mostly on Ext.A8 and the Commissioner's report Ext.C1. Ext.A8 reflected a land value of Rs.87,500/- per cent. The Court below did not place any reliance on Ext.A8. According to the Court below the advocate Commissioner was unsuccessful in identifying Ext.A8 property and there was no

¶19

L.A.A. NO. 160 OF 2011 -:2:-

¶20

evidence as to what extent the acquired property and Ext.A8 property were comparable. Ultimately what the Court below did was to make an over all assessment of the evidence taking into account the possibilities and potentialities of the land under acquisition, refixed the land value at Rs.38,556/- per Are corresponding to Rs.15,556/per cent.

¶21

In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the adequacy of market value refixed by the Court. Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned counsel for the appellant addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of the grounds. According to Mr.Pavithran, who read over to us the Commissioner's report, the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in taking the view that the Commissioner did not identify Ext.A8

¶22

L.A.A. NO. 160 OF 2011 -:3:-

¶23

property correctly. He argued that Ext.A8 property was properly identified and the Commissioner correctly reported that Ext.A8

¶24

property and the property under acquisition are comparable.

¶25

Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned

¶26

Government Pleader would oppose the submissions of Mr.Pavithran. Smt.Beena of M/s Sheriff Associates, would support the Government Pleader in all her submissions.

¶27

We have anxiously considered the

¶28

arguments addressed at the bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Courts below and we have also applied our mind to Ext.A8 and the Commissioner's report. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the comparability of Ext.A8 property with the

¶29

L.A.A. NO. 160 OF 2011 -:4:-

¶30

property under acquisition. Apart from the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge on going through the schedule of Ext.A8 it is seen that Ext.A8 property is described as low land whereas the property under acquisition was wet land. We also exclude Ext.A8 from consideration for fixing the market value.

¶31

Mr.Pavithran, drew our attention to Ext.A11 judgment under which the market value of wet lands was refixed at Rs.3,50,000/- per cent. But Mr.Pavithran himself would concede that in Ext.A11 there is a clear observation that Ext.A11 will not be a precedent for other cases. We notice our own judgment in LAA 1332/10 which is in respect of wet lands acquired in Mulavaukadu village itself pursuant to a subsequent notification two years after the present notification. Under the above judgment

¶32

L.A.A. NO. 160 OF 2011 -:5:-

¶33

the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at Rs.5,71,171/- per Are. This Court approved the refixation of the land value at Rs.1,45,768/- adopted by the Reference Court. We feel that the above judgment reflects the

¶34

pace of escalation in the land value in Mulavaukadu. We notice that on account of emergence of various major projects in and around Mulavaukadu including ICTT project, land value had been skyrocketing in the area during these periods. We feel that substantially the same value as is granted to a party in LAA 1332/10 can be given to the claimants. Relying on that judgment we allow the appeal and refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.47,000/- per cent. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible

¶35

L.A.A. NO. 160 OF 2011

¶36

-:6:-

¶37

u/Ss. 23(2), 23(1A) and S.28 of Land Acquisition Act. The Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in our order dated 9.2.11 in C.M.Appln.280/11, while drafting the decree. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶38

Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.

¶39

Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

Lakshmi Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Karthikeyan 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

The Sree Sankaracharya Uty of Sanskrit Vs State of Kerala

T.v.Mohanan Vs the Special Tahsildar

O.P.Alippu Vs the District Collector

Ramachandran Unnithan Balchandran Unnith Vs State of Kerala

Madhusoodhanan and Another Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary, Kodom Belur Grama Panchay Vs the Spl.Tahsildar (La), Kasargod