Partly allowed

I.G.Asokan v. Special Tahsildar (La)

Kerala HC9 Feb 2011LA.App./226/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a land acquisition appeal, holding the lower court lenient in valuing the land. The court re-fixed market value at Rs. 2,25,000/- per cent and enhanced building compensation by Rs. 11,200/-, granting statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Market value fixed at Rs.2,25,000/- per cent; building compensation enhanced by Rs.11,200/;. Statutory benefits under S. 23(2), 23(1A) and S. 28 allowed.

I.G.Asokan Vs 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 226 of 2009(B) ------------------------------LAR.394/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶7

¶8

I.G. ASOKAN, AGED 57 (FIFTY SEVEN), YEARS, RESIDING AT ILLATHUPARAMPIL, S.R.M. ROAD, KOCHI -18, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), STATE OF KERALA, RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS), THIRUVANATHAPURAM.

¶14

ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

-----------------------------------------------L. A. A. No.226 of 2009 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶20

The claimant is in appeal. His small plot of land with an old building thereon was acquired at the behest of the Southern Railway for the purpose of the expansion of Ernakulam Town Railway Station platform. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 12/01/06. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,35,120/- per Are corresponding to Rs.1,76,906/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellant produced Ext.A1 which was a document executed in favour of the Head load Workers Welfare Board. This document reflected a land value of Rs.3,49,580/- per cent. The distance between the land covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition was not much. The court below, in our opinion rightly did not rely on Ext.A1. Even though the distance between

¶21

L. A. A. No.226 of 2009 -2-

¶22

the acquired property and Ext.A1 was not much, there was no comparison between the two properties. It was found that unlike the acquired property Ext.A1 was enjoying the frontage of the road leading from Siva Rama Menon Road to the North Railway station platform. Ultimately, the court below relied on the basis document itself. The court below also considered the judgment in LAR.318/06. The Land Acquisition Officer had relied on the basis document after making a cut of 25% from the value reflected in that document. What the court below did was to reduce the cut to 5%, thus award to the appellant 20% more than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus the market value of the land was fixed by the court below at Rs.5,26,100/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2,12,909/- per cent. For the building which existed on the property the Awarding Officer awarded a total value of Rs.56,100/- for the building. The court below awarded a sum of Rs.11,200/- as additional compensation calculated at the rate of 20% of the building value awarded.

¶23

L. A. A. No.226 of 2009

¶24

-3-

¶25

In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging the

¶26

correctness of the market value as well as the value fixed for the

¶27

building. Sri.P.M.M Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed strenuous arguments before us. All the arguments of Sri.Najeeb Khan were stiffly resisted by Sri.M.C. Cheriyan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. We have heard the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have made a quick survey of the evidence. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate

¶28

Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.A1 for fixing the market value of the land. Even then, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly while fixing the market value. After all the property was situated in a very important area of the Cochin Corporation very near to the town Railway station. We are of the view that on a better assessment of the evidence actually on record, the market value of the land can be fixed at Rs.2,25,000/- per cent. It is accordingly re-fixed.

¶29

L. A. A. No.226 of 2009

¶30

-4-

¶31

The same is the position as regards the building value awarded. The court below could have awarded a total amount of Rs.22,400/- based on the evidence actually available on record towards building value. We award to the appellant a further sum of Rs.11,200/- as building value over what was awarded by the court below. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶32

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶33

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶34

kns/-

¶35

L. A. A. No.226 of 2009 -5-

I.G.Asokan v. Special Tahsildar (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.G.Asokan v. Special Tahsildar (La)

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

Scientific&Industrial Research Director Vs a.R.Padmini Bai

St.Mary'S Forine Church Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Bhasura Devi

S.Sathi Devi Vs State of Kerala

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Christy Vallantheen

State of Kerala Vs C.I.Premnath