Partly allowed

Eldhose K.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jan 2011LA.App./182/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal in part, enhancing the land value award after deducting 10% for the extent of acquisition. It awarded lump sum compensation for injurious affection to the remaining property and additional value for improvements, while denying solatium for these specific awards.

What did the court decide?

Awarded enhanced land value of Rs. 6750/- per are, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for injurious affection, and Rs. 20,000/- for improvements; denied solatium for these amounts.

Eldhose K.V. 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 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 182 of 2004()

¶4

------------------------LAR.252/1996 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS:

¶6

¶7

ELDHOSE K.V., S/O. LATE VARGHESE, KAVUMGUMPILLY HOUSE, KEERAMPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶8

ANNAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. LATE VARGHESE, KAVUMGUMPILLY HOUSE, KEERAMPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.

¶13

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

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

¶16

LAA. No. 182 of 2004

¶17

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶20

The claimants are in appeal being not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the reference court. In this appeal, there is claim for enhancement in land value, for compensation for injurious affection on account of severence of the unacquired portion of the lands belonging to the claimants and also towards value of improvements.

¶21

We shall deal with the question of land value first.

¶22

Reliance is placed mostly by the appellants on Ext.A5 document which reflected a land value of Rs.12,000/- per Are. The court below did not place reliance on Ext. A5 taking the view that there is a distance of two kilometres between the property covered by Ext.A5 and the acquired property. In fact the court below did not place reliance on any of the documents relied on by the claimants in support

¶23

LAR. 182/04

¶24

-2-

¶25

of their claim for enhancement in land value. Ultimately what the court below did was to do guess work and re-fix the land value at Rs.6000/- per Are. Having re-appreciated the evidence pertaining to land value we feel that to a certain extent Ext.A5 can be relied on and the value of the land in that area at the relevant time can be re-fixed at Rs.7500/- per Are. However, we are not inclined to award land value to the appellants at that rate. We notice that the property under acquisition is a fairly large extent. Considering the largeness of the extent we become inclined to deduct 10%. Thus we re-fix the value of land under acquisition Rs.6750/- per Are. This means that the appellant will have to be awarded at the rate of 750/- per Are more than what is awarded by the reference court. It is accordingly awarded.

¶26

We shall now deal with the question of compensation, if any, for injurious affection. A reading of the impugned judgment will show that the court below has declined any compensation for injurious affection on the

¶27

LAR. 182/04

¶28

-3-

¶29

reason that precise details are not available as to what is the total extent of the property retained by the appellants. Ext.A4 gives some indication as to the balance extent actually retained. The mahazar will also reveal that the entire holding belonging to the appellant is not acquired. We feel that on account of the construction of the safety zone through middle of the remainder property of the appellant, such remainder property has been injuriously affected to a considerable extent. At the same time we are not inclined to award compensation at the rates claimed in the appeal. We feel that there is justification for awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant as compensation for injurious affection of the remainder property.

¶30

The appellant has a claim for additional value of improvements. Though it was a tall claim that was raised before the reference court and the Advocate Commissioner had recommended for awarding a further amount of more than Rs.1,60,000/- as additional compensation for value of

¶31

LAR. 182/04

¶32

-4-

¶33

improvements, in the present appeal the above claim has limited to Rs.50,000/-. Having made a reappraisal of the evidence we feel that the appellant is entitled for atleast Rs.20,000/- towards value of improvements. We award to the appellant Rs.20,000/- as additional value of improvements.

¶34

The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The appellants will be entitled for a statutory benefits. But it is made clear that for the amounts which are being awarded to the appellants by this judgment towards severence compensation, the appellants will not be entitled for solatium under Section 23(2) and the additional amounts under Section 23(1A). Appeal is allowed to the above extent. However, parties will suffer their respective costs.

¶35

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶36

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶37

ksv/-

Eldhose K.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eldhose K.V. 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

P.Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Arayakandy Udayakumar Vs the Special Tahsildar, La, Kannur

Kochi Refineries Ltd.,(Now Bharat Petrol Vs Paulose and Another

P.v.Biyathu Vs Special Tahsildar (LA),N.H.NO.1,KZD

Krishnakumar Vs Babu Thomas

Vellanchery Moideen Koya Vs Vettapparakkal Raghavan