Allowed

E.P.Samuel v. District Collector,Ernakulam

Kerala HC29 Mar 2011LA.App./449/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This land acquisition appeal challenged the inadequacy of compensation awarded for a building by the Reference Court. The High Court held the rejection of valuation reports erroneous and awarded an additional Rs. 2,50,000/- as further compensation, granting statutory benefits thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 2,50,000/- as further compensation for building value and entitlement to statutory benefits.

E.P.Samuel Vs District Collector,Ernakulam — 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

LA.App..No. 449 of 2006() ------------------------(LAR NO.54 OF 2002 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR)

¶6

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

¶7

E.P.SAMUEL, EDASSERY HOUSE, ANGAMALY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT.

¶10

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THNAKPPAN

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

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

¶15

L.A.A.No.449 OF 2006

¶16

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2011

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶19

The claimant is in appeal. His land with building (a substantial building having a plinth area of about 8100 sq.ft) was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway 47. The appellant has no complaint about the land value redetermined by the Reference Court. In the appeal the claim is confined to the correct compensation payable for the building.

¶20

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of

¶21

Rs.11,80,212/- for the building. For his claim for enhanced compensation for the building, the appellant relied mostly on Exts.A1 report submitted by the commissioner appointed by the civil court on the basis of local inspection and Ext.A1(a) valuation statement prepared by a Chartered Engineer who assisted the commissioner in the matter. Under Exts.A1 and A1 (a), it was reported that the correct value of the building after

¶22

L.A.A.No.449/2006 2

¶23

deducting depreciation will be Rs.22,29,835/-. The Engineer, who prepared Ext.A1(a) was examined as PW3. He was cross examined throughly by the learned Government Pleader in the Reference Court. The learned Sub Judge under the impugned Judgment discarded Ext.A1 and A1(a) completely. What the learned Sub Judge did ultimately was to apply the rule of thumb and award to the appellant 30% increase over the original rate awarded by the LAO.

¶24

In this appeal, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court and Sri.George Abraham learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments based on those grounds. All the arguments of Sri.George Abraham were very stiffly resisted by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. According to the Government Pleader, the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Exts.A1 and A1(a) are excellent reasons and there is no warrant for interference with the same.

¶25

We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed before us. We have gone through Exts.A1 an A1(a) copies of which are available before us. We feel that the learned

¶26

L.A.A.No.449/2006 3

¶27

Subordinate Judge was not justified in completely discarding Exts.A1 and A1(a). According to us, to a limited extent data furnished by the commissioner and the engineer could have been relied on. We notice that the building was a first class building in the ground floor of which Angamaly branch of Federal Bank is being accommodated. We notice that the other portions of the building were occupied by the tenants probably paying substantial rent. Even if the method of valuation of capitalisation of rental income had been adopted, the total compensation to be paid would have been more than what is awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge. Taking all the relevant inputs into account and having due regard to the acceptable materials furnished under Exts.A1 and A1(a), we feel that the compensation redetermined by the learned Subordinate Judge for the building is inadequate. According to us, there is every justification for awarding to the appellant a further amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as further compensation for the building.

¶28

Allowing this appeal, we award Rs.2,50,000/- more as compensation towards building value. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2),

¶29

L.A.A.No.449/2006 4

¶30

23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total refixed

¶31

compensation. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶32

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶33

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶34

dpk

E.P.Samuel v. District Collector,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.P.Samuel v. District Collector,Ernakulam

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

State of Kerala Rep.by Dc, Tvm Vs Shaila & Another

State of Kerala Vs Sundaresan and Another

State of Kerala Vs Father M.K.Mathai and Others

N.K.Reshma Vs the Special Tahsildar & Another

Saji Vs Zainaba & Others

Raramkandath Usman Koya Vs Paramkandath Aboobacker