Allowed

Padmavathi v. the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division

Kerala HC24 Mar 2011LA.App./199/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this land acquisition appeal, increasing the refixed market value of the claimant's garden land from Rs. 37,500 to Rs. 45,000 per cent, aligning it with a prior precedent for identical land acquired for the same bridge project. The appellant became eligible for statutory benefits and interest.

What did the court decide?

Market value refixed at Rs. 45,000 per cent. Entitlement to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28.

Padmavathi Vs the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶5

SUNDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2011 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1933

¶6

LA.App..No. 199 of 2011()

¶7

------------------------LAR.24/2008 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA

¶8

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS

¶9

¶10

M.T.PADMAVATHI, D/O. LATE CHEKUTY, MANALTHAZHATH VEEDU, PUDUPPANAM AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶12

SMT.RENI RASHEED SMT.D.MINI RAJAN

¶13

SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

THE SPECIAL THAHSILDAR (L.A.), NH DIVISION, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶18

NH DIVISION, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION.

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

L.A.A.No.199 OF 2011

¶23

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2011

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶26

This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land in Nadakkuthazha village of Vadakara Taluk for the purpose of construction of Palolipalam Bridge. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 10/4/2005. The property was garden land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.22,290/- per cent. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties refixed the land at Rs.37,500/- per cent.

¶27

In this appeal various grounds are raised urging that the market value refixed by the court below is quite inadequate. Having anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant Smt.Mini Rajan, and the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, we feel that the issue raised in this appeal is covered to a certain extent in favour of the appellant. In fact, Smt.Latha T.Thankappan drew our attention to our own judgment in L.A.A. No.646/2009. We notice that as per that judgment for identical land acquired

¶28

L.A.A.No.199/2011 2

¶29

for the same purpose this court has refixed the value at Rs.45,000/- per cent. Following that judgment, we allow this appeal to the extent of refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.45,000/- per cent.

¶30

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total refixed compensation to which she become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, while providing for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in our order in C.M.Appln. No. 409/2011. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the conditions imposed in that order are complied with and the full balance court fee is remitted by the appellant.

¶31

The appeal is allowed. However without any order as to costs.

¶32

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶33

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk

Padmavathi v. the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmavathi v. the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division

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

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

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

Baby Vs State of Kerala