Partly allowed

Prabhavathi Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2011LA.App./251/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a land acquisition appeal regarding compensation for a building, cattle shed, and well, the High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal partially. The court awarded an additional Rs.30,000 over the lower court's award, applying statutory benefits under specific sections of the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional compensation of Rs.30,000 and entitled the appellant to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Prabhavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 251 of 2008() ------------------------------LAR.102/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------

¶7

PRABHAVATHI AMMA, D/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA, KALLELIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT

¶10

-------------------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

svs

¶15

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

¶16

L.A.A.No.251 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011

¶18

Judgment

¶19

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶20

The claimant is the appellant. Her claim is confined to the correct compensation to be paid for the building, the cattle shed and well which existed on the property under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.32,621/- for these improvements. Before the reference court, the appellant took out a commission. The Commissioner inspected the improvements with the assistance of an approved valuer, a retired Executive Engineer from the P.W.D. On the basis of the valuation report prepared by the valuer, the Commissioner recommended for enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.61,720/-. Before the reference court, the Commissioner was examined and commission report was marked. The valuer could not be examined as he passed away. The learned Subordinate Judge has discarded the Commissioner's report and valuer's report solely on the reason that unless the valuer is examined, the report cannot

¶21

LAA 251/08

¶22

¶23

be said to be satisfactorily proved. In this appeal, grounds are raised against the decision of the court below not to rely on the commission report.

¶24

Mr.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Commissioner's report forms part of the record and the same shall stand duly proved. No objection was filed by the Government against the same. The valuer would not have been examined. Learned counsel would further submit that the report relied on can be accepted and the appeal be allowed in full. The submissions of Mr.Suresh Kumar were opposed by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader. She would, however, submit that there may be justification for awarding a further amount of Rs.11,400/- applying the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with P.W.D. schedule of rate is not a pragmatic idea.

¶25

We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not able to approve the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge to ignore the Commissioner's report on the reason that the valuer was not examined. At the same time, we are not inclined to accept the report of the

¶26

LAA 251/08

¶27

¶28

Commissioner and the valuer in full. Having made a reappraisal of the entire evidence came on record including Ext.C1 and the valuer's report, we are of the view that the appellant can be awarded a further amount of Rs.30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards compensation for the buildings and improvements. We, therefore, award to the appellant a sum of Rs.30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the court below. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be 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.

¶29

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶30

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶31

srd

¶32

LAA 251/08 4

¶33

LAA 251/08 5

Prabhavathi Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhavathi 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

Gopalakrishnan @ Mottayandy, C.NO.795 Vs State of Kerala

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Shibu C.Senan

State of Kerala Vs L.Sreelekha and Others

State of Kerala Vs C.Renuka Devi

State of Kerala, Rep. by Spl. Tahsildar Vs Pattuvamveettil Raman and Another

Kannan B Vs State of Kerala