Allowed

G.Reghunath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2011LA.App./171/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-bench judgment delivered the same day allowed the appeals and refixed market land value at Rs.25,000 per cent, relying on private sale transactions, while condoning a delay of 287 days on conditions regarding costs and suspending interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; compensation refixed at Rs.25,000/cent; statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 granted with conditions on delay condonation.

G.Reghunath 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 171 of 2011() ------------------------(LAR NO.27 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT PALA)

¶4

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS

¶5

¶6

G.REGHUNATH, VARAKAPPILLIL, KURINJI P.O., RAMAPURAM.

¶7

G.SOMARAJ, VARAKAPPILLIL, KURINJI P.O., RAMAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------

¶10

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

¶11

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN

¶12

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO.173/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

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

¶14

L.A.A.Nos. 171 & 173 OF 2011

¶15

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2011

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶18

The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in

¶19

Ramapuram village were acquired by the Government for the purpose of upgradation of Thodupuzha – Punalur State Highway. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 21/12/2004. The properties were dry lands enjoying frontage of the existing road.

¶20

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1900/- per cent. Before the Reference Court the appellants produced Exts.A1 to A5 and the oral evidence of AWs 1 and 2 apart from facilitating filing of Ext.X1 commission report. On the side of the Government, the evidence consisted of award file containing Exts.R1 to R5. Exts.A2 to A4 were transactions of outright sales in favour of the Government by parties whose lands also had to be utilised for the same purpose and had been originally notified for acquisition under the very same section 4

¶21

LAA.No.171 & 173/2011 2

¶22

(1) notification. Exts.A2 to A4 reflected land value of Rs.40,000/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to rely completely on Exts.A2 to A4 for two reasons. One was that they are post notification documents and another was that they were the result of a compromise between the parties. The learned Subordinate Judge however would refix the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent.

¶23

In this appeals various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy in the compensation redetermined by the court below. Sri.Mathew Skaria, learned counsel for the appellants addressed arguments based on those grounds. All the arguments of Mr.Mathew Skaria were resisted by Smt.Lata.T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader.

¶24

We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment. The question which arises seriously for consideration is to what extent Exts.A2 to A4 can be relied on. As already indicated, at least to some extent Exts.A2 to A4 has been relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge. Having reappreciated the evidence, we feel that Exts.A2 to A4 themselves can be relied

¶25

LAA.No.171 & 173/2011 3

¶26

on to some more extent. Relying on Exts.A2 to A4 to further extents, we refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.25,000/- per cent.

¶27

The appeals are allowed to the above extent. The appellants 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 refixed compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, while interest under Section 28 is calculated, the Registry will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this court in the order passed on the applications for condonation of delay (C.M.Appln.361/2011 in L.A.A. No.171/2011 and C.M.Appln. No.363/2011 in L.A.A.No.173/2011). The parties will suffer their respective costs.

¶28

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶29

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶30

dpk

¶31

LAA.No.171 & 173/2011

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

LAA.No.171 & 173/2011

¶35

¶36

C.M.Appln.361/2011 in L.A.A.No. 171 OF 2011

¶37

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2011

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶40

This application seeking condondation of delay of 287 days caused in the matter of filing the appeal is very stiffly opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader. However, on the consideration that as far as possible causes should be allowed to be adjudicated on merits rather than decided on technicalities, we are inclined to condone the delay imposing conditions. Hence, this application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions;

¶41

i). The appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Government as costs through the office of the Advocate General within two weeks from today.

¶42

ii). The appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee also within the same time

¶43

LAA.No.171 & 173/2011

¶44

¶45

limit.

¶46

Iii). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellants becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 287 days condoned by this order.

¶47

Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal. The Registry will send up the appeal for admission once receipts against payment of the above amounts are noticed.

¶48

¶49

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶50

dpk

¶51

LAA.No.171 & 173/2011

¶52

¶53

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶54

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶55

dpk

G.Reghunath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Reghunath 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

The Project Officer Vs Chembakassery Meethal

Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

P.Nirmal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

John Vs Subhadra

Special Tahsildar Vs Rugmini Amma

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Thulasi and Another