Allowed

Sri.Kasim & Another v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC18 Jan 2011LA.App./29/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed a land acquisition appeal filed by claimants challenging their award for Changanacherry bypass land. The court re-fixed the market value based on a related judgment (Ext.A11), enhancing compensation by 5%. However, interest on the enhanced amount was denied for the period condoned in a prior order.

What did the court decide?

Market value re-fixed at Rs. 1,62,692/- per Are; compensation enhanced accordingly; interest denied for 149-day condoned period.

Sri.Kasim & Another Vs the State of Kerala and Others — 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 TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 29 of 2011 -------------------------LAR.23/2006 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS 1 & 2:

¶5

¶6

SRI.KASIM, S/O ABDUL KHADER, THYPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUZHAVATTU, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶7

SMT.NABEESA, D/O BEEYAMMA, THYPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUZHAVATTU, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L. A. A. No.29 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶21

The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Changanacherry village of Kottayam district were included in category-2 and acquired for the construction of Changanacherry byepass. This was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification last published on 20/01/05. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.21,793/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, they relied on various items of evidence including Ext.C1 Commission Report and Ext.C1(a) sketch. However, at the time of hearing, reliance

¶22

was mostly placed on Ext.A11 judgment in LAR.31/06 and LAR.27/06. Under Ext.A11 judgment, the Reference Court re-fixed the value of the lands involved in that case at

¶23

L. A. A. No.29 of 2011

¶24

-2-

¶25

Rs.1,71,255/- per Are. The Reference Court did not place reliance on Ext.A11 stating reason that Ext.A11 and the case

¶26

on hand are covered by entirely different notifications. Sri.V.P.Mohammed Niyas, the learned counsel for the appellants would argue on the basis of the impugned judgment, Ext.A11 judgment, and also the officer's award relating to Ext.A11 that both the acquisitions were pursuant to the very same notification. We find merit in the above submission. Even if there was difference in the dates of Section 4(1) notification, going by the reference letters sent to the court the difference is due to variance in the dates of publication in dailies, localities etc. At any rate, going by Ext.A11, the notification under Section 4(1) there, is of some three months earlier. Position admitted is that both are acquisitions for the same purpose i.e. two different stretches of Changanacherry byepass situated within the

¶27

L. A. A. No.29 of 2011

¶28

-3-

¶29

area of the Changanacherry Municipality. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in LAA.1524/08 will show that Ext.A11 has attained finality at the hands of this Court.

¶30

Sri.Niyas would argue on the basis of certain observations in the impugned judgment that there is a finding by the court that the property covered by Ext.A11 and the property involved in this case are identical. We do not think so. According to us, the price difference of 5% maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the two properties has to be maintained. Relying on Ext.A11, the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably re-fixed at Rs.1,62,692/-. It is accordingly refixed. Enhanced compensation will be calculated on that basis. But we make it clear that interest under Section 28 on the enhanced compensation will not be allowed during the period of 149 days condoned by this Court by order in

¶31

L. A. A. No.29 of 2011

¶32

-4-

¶33

C.M.Application No.2164/09. The appeal is allowed to the

¶34

above extent, however, without any order as to costs.

¶35

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶36

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶37

kns/-

¶38

The words “per Are” are inserted after the figure Rs.1,62,692/- in the 9^th line of paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 18/01/2011 in L.A.A.29/2011, vide order dated 13/06/2011 in I.A.1566/2011.

¶39

Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)

Sri.Kasim & Another v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Kasim & Another v. the State of Kerala and Others

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

Airport Director Vs Pappanattu Mamukkoya

The Airport Director Vs K.Abdulraheem

Airport Director Vs Pakakkaodan Biyyathu

Kunimal Parambath Preetha Vs State of Kerala

The National Thermal Power Corporation Vs Peethambaran

Managing Director Vs State of Kerala and Others