Allowed

Sarasamma Santhakumari Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2011LA.App./221/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal by refixing the market value of the dry land at Rs.50,000/- per Are. The court also condoned an 825-day filing delay subject to conditions regarding payment and interest waiver.

What did the court decide?

Market value refixed at Rs.50,000/- per Are. Delays condoned with payment of Rs.1500/- to Legal Services Committee and waiver of interest for the delayed period.

Sarasamma Santhakumari Amma 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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

LA.App..No. 221 of 2011()

¶5

------------------------LAR.141/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶7

¶8

SARASAMMA SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, VILAYIL VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERI, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV

¶10

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

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPARESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 691 501.

¶12

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

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

¶15

L.A.A.No. 221 OF 2011

¶16

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2011

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶19

The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Thrikkadavoor village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/5/199.5 The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Kollam Bye pass. The land was dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.35,405/- per Are.

¶20

Before the Reference Court, Ext.A1 and A2 two pre notification documents reflecting value of Rs.75,000/- per are were relied on. These documents were proved by examining PW1 claimant herself. The claimant in cross examination by the Government Pleader was unable to give the details of the scheduled portions of these documents. The learned Sub Judge for the above reason did not place any reliance on these two documents. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was to

¶21

LAA.No.221/2011 2

¶22

do guess work and to refix the market value granting enhancement of 30% above what was awarded by the LAO.

¶23

Sri.C.A.Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellant would argue before us that the court below was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2 completely. Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader however would support the impugned judgment. According to her, as Exts.A1 and A2 were not properly proved by examining vendor or vendee, the court below was not justified in not placing reliance on them. True, Exts.A1 and A2 were not proved by examining the parties. but we notice another aspect of the matter. To whatever evidence that was adduced by the claimant, there is not even formal counter evidence on the side of the Government. We are of the view that there was justification for placing reliance at least to a certain extent on Exts.A1 and A2. Keeping in mind Exts.A1 and A2 also, we are inclined to refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.50,000/- per Are.

¶24

We allow this appeal by refixing the market value of the land at Rs.50,000/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and

¶25

LAA.No.221/2011 3

¶26

Section 28 of the Act on the total refixed compensation to which she becomes 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 orders in C.M.Appln. No.479/2011 and C.M.Appln. No.399/2011. The Section will issue decree copy only after ensuring that the conditions imposed by us under the above two orders have been complied with and that full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is paid.

¶27

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶28

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

dpk

LAA.No.221/2011

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

¶33

C.M.Appln. No.479 of 2011 in

¶34

LAA.No.221/2011

¶35

¶36

L.A.A.No. 221 OF 2011

¶37

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2011

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶40

This application seeks condonation of the delay of 825 days caused in the matter of filing the appeal. We are not fully convinced by the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay. There is stiff opposition from the side of the Government also for condoning the delay. 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 terms. Hence, it is ordered that the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions;

¶41

i). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from today.

¶42

ii). In case the appeal is allowed and the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 825 days condoned by this order.

¶43

LAA.No.221/2011

¶44

¶45

Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal.

¶46

The Registry will send up the appeal for admission once receipt against payment of the above amount is noticed.

¶47

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶48

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶49

dpk

Sarasamma Santhakumari Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarasamma Santhakumari Amma 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

K.C.George Vs the Spl.Tahsildar (L.a) Railways, Ekm

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvm. Vs Maroli Mathu

Maroli Vijayan and Another Vs Government of Kerala,Rep.by Dt.Collector

The Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Sabeth

E.P.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Another