Partly allowed

R.Parameswaran v. Special Tahsildar (La)

Kerala HC31 Jan 2011LA.App./50/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition appeal, the High Court of Kerala examined the adequacy of compensation fixed for wet land acquired for a by-pass road. The court refixed the land value and awarded statutory benefits while rejecting the claim for injurious severance due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; land value refixed at Rs.13,000/- per cent; statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(IA) and 28 of the L.A. Act granted; claim for injurious severance rejected.

R.Parameswaran Vs Special Tahsildar (La) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 50 of 2009() -------------------------------LAR.25/2002 of COURT OF SUB JUDGE (ADDL.), PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT :- ---------------------------------------

¶2

R.PARAMESWARAN, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT EZHUTHASSANVEEDU, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD II VILLGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶3

BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶4

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :-

¶5

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

¶6

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUSITION (GENERAL) NO.2, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶7

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

jvt

¶9

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

¶10

L.A.A. No.50 of 2009

¶11

Dated this the 31^st day of January 2011

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

N.K.Balakrishnan, J.

¶14

Pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 20.4.1999 0.1600 hectares (39.53 cents) of land which belonged to the appellant was acquired for Kozhikode-Palakkad by-pass road. It was classified as wet land. The L.A.Officer determined the compensation fixing the land value at Rs.8,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court Exts.A1 to A4 and Commissioner's Report C1 were marked and Aws.1 and 2 were examined. The basis document was marked as Ext.R1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned Sub Judge refixed the land value at Rs.11,000/- per cent.

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the land value re-determined by the Reference Court is too low and in-adequate. It is also contended that the appellant was not granted compensation on the ground of injurious severance.

¶16

L.A.A. No.50 of 2009

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

The learned counsel has relied upon Ext.A1 document dated 4.6.1998. It is in respect of 8.10 cents of land which was sold for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-; at the rate of Rs.12,340/per cent. Another document in respect of 10 cents of land was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant where the total consideration was Rs.3,00,000/-. Yet another document relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant is Ext.A3 which also is a pre-notification document where the sale consideration shown was Rs.90,000/- .

¶19

The learned counsel also drew our attention to Ext.C1 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the property and drew a sketch. The Commissioner has reported about the importance of the locality. The acquired property was a paddy field and not a dry land and so the value reflected in the documents referred to by the claimant cannot be adopted to value the acquired land. It was rightly held by the learned Sub Judge also. It was also submitted that the acquired land is having road frontage and is situated in an important locality, some where near Government Victoria College, Palakkad. Considering all the aspects, we find something more has to be

¶20

L.A.A. No.50 of 2009

¶21

-: 3 :-

¶22

granted as enhanced compensation. We find that the land value can be refixed at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per cent. Since no evidence has been let in, the claimant is not entitled to get compensation on the ground of injurious severance.

¶23

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part refixing the land value at Rs.13,000/- per cent. The claimant is entitled to get statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(IA) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act.

¶24

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶25

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

¶26

Jvt

R.Parameswaran v. Special Tahsildar (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Parameswaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kappan Shamsudheen Vs the District Collector

Alice Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs the State of Kerala and Another

The Project Officer (Oecf) Kwa Vs Pandaloor Mary

Kochi Refineries Ltd. Vs K.K. Parameswaran Nair & Another

Kochi Refineries Ltd. Vs Neelakandan Nair