Allowed

Smt.Krishnaveni and Others v. the Special Tahsildar (La), Railways

Kerala HC24 Mar 2011LA.App./189/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal by relying on a prior judgment, refixing the market value of the land at Rs.2,25,000 per cent to match the precedent value rather than the officer's award, while allowing statutory benefits subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The market value of the land under acquisition is refixed at Rs.2,25,000/- per cent, and appellants are entitled to statutory benefits. No order as to costs.

Smt.Krishnaveni and Others Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)… — 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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

LA.App..No. 189 of 2011()

¶6

------------------------LAR.388/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS

¶8

¶9

SMT.KRISHNAVENI,W/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, KARIYAPARAMBIL,SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-18.

¶10

ANIL,S/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, KARIYAPARAMBIL,SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-18.

¶11

SUNIL,S/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, KARIYAPARAMBIL,SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-18.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAYS MANAGER, THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAYAS MANAGER(WORKS), TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2

¶18

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LAHA T.THANKAPPAN

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

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

¶21

L.A.A.No. 189 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 24^h day of March, 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶25

This appeal by the claimants pertains to acquisition of land in Ernakulam Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 12/1/2006 for the purpose of expansion of Ernakulam Town Railway station platform. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,35,120/- per Are corresponding to Rs.1,70,906/-.

¶26

Mr C.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to our own judgment in L.A.A. No.226/2009. The learned counsel submitted that under that judgment, we have refixed the land value at Rs.2,25,000/- per cent. According to him, there is justification for awarding a higher rate for the property in this case as this property unlike the property in L.A.A. No.226/2009 was enjoying road access.

¶27

Mr.M.C.Cherian, learned standing counsel for the

¶28

LAA.No.189/2011 2

¶29

railway would oppose the above request of Mr.Chandrasekharan. According to him, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same rate for the properties in this case as well as for the property in L.A.A. No.226/2009. The Advocate commissioner has not reported that this property was enjoying any road access.

¶30

Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the appellants cannot aspire for more than the value what is awarded to the party in L.A.A. No.226/2009. Relying on the judgment in L.A.A. No.226/2009, we allow this appeal to the extent of refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2,25,000/- per cent.

¶31

The appeal is allowed refixing the market value of land at Rs.2,25,000/- per cent. The appellants will be entitled for statutory benefits also. However, while providing for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in our order dated 14/3/2011 in C.M.Appln.392/2011.

¶32

The appeal is allowed however without any order as to costs. The Registry will issue decree copy to the appellants only after ensuring that the entire balance court fee is remitted and

¶33

LAA.No.189/2011 3 the conditions imposed by us in our order in C.M.Appln. No.392/2011 are complied with.

¶34

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶35

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶36

dpk

Smt.Krishnaveni and Others v. the Special Tahsildar (La), Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Krishnaveni and Others v. the Special Tahsildar (La), Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Norbert and Others

State of Kerala Vs Indira Bhai and Another

State of Kerala Vs P.a.Pappachan

Mohammed Kannu Mohammed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Vs the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division