Allowed

Sakunthala v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC12 Jan 2011LA.App./52/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, in Land Acquisition Appeals, enhanced compensation for land acquired for railway line doubling. The court fixed new rates per are for Category A and B lands, accounting for frontage, extent smallness, delay, and slope, while allowing statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 79,000/- per Are for Category A lands and Rs. 71,000/- per Are for Category B lands; statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A), and 28 awarded.

Sakunthala Vs State of Kerala and Another — 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 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 52 of 2009(C) ----------------------------LAR.150/2001 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶7

¶8

SAKUNTHALA,D/O MADHAVAN,ENCHAVILA VEEDU, VETTOOR, CHERUNNIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,CONSTRUCTIONS, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, A/W LAA.54/09 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L. A. A. Nos.52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 66, 67, 93, 107, 222 & 233 of 2009

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Balakrishnan, J

¶21

The claimants are in appeal. Properties were acquired

¶22

for doubling the Railway Line from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram. Section 4(1) notification was published on 04/09/1999. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, they sought for reference. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the amount. But still the claimants are aggrieved. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that the properties were categorised as 'A' category and 'B' category. For the 'A' category land, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.46,384/- per Are whereas for the 'B' category property, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the

¶23

L.A.A. No.52/09 & con. cases -2-

¶24

land value at Rs.41,746/- per Are. It is stated that so far as 'A' category lands are concerned, it is having road frontage whereas 'B' category land has no road frontage. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on Ext.A1 Sale Deed dated 24/02/97 which was in respect of six cents of land. The land value for six cents was shown as Rs.2,10,000/which will come to Rs.35,000/- per cent. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the land value in respect of 'A' category land at Rs.61,200/- per Are whereas in respect of 'B' category land, the value was fixed at Rs.55,575/- per Are.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to Ext.A1 and vehemently argued that the court below should have accepted the land value as the value as on the date of Ext.A1 shown therein. But on the other hand, the Senior Government Pleader submits that the Sale Deed was in respect of only a bit of land namely six cents and it

¶26

L.A.A. No.52/09 & con. cases -3-

¶27

was having road frontage and so the land value shown therein should not be adopted to fix the land value in respect of the acquired land. It was further pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the acquired properties are slopy in nature and as such that also should be taken into account while determining the land value. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that since Ext.A1 sale deed was about two years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification and since there are no other features which would render the value shown therein unacceptable, the land value shown therein should have been taken into account by the Reference Court and additional amount should have also been added for the passage of time of about two and half years. Considering all the aspects, we find that while 20% has to be deducted towards the smallness of the extent covered by Ext.A1, but at the same time, for passage of time 20% has to be given.

¶28

L.A.A. No.52/09 & con. cases

¶29

-4-

¶30

Further, some percentage should also be reduced as the acquired land is in a slopy nature. It is also to be noted that the difference between 'A' category and 'B' category lands are concerned, the value of 'B' category land is almost 90% of 'A' category land. Thus, we fix the land value in respect of 'A' category land at Rs.79,000/- per Are. In respect of 'B' category land, the land value is fixed at Rs.71,000/- per Are. Accordingly all the appeals are allowed to the above extent. The claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶31

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶32

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶33

kns/-

¶34

L.A.A. No.52/09 & con. cases -5-

Sakunthala v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakunthala v. State of Kerala and Another

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 Vs Kumaran

Rasheeda Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Kunju Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.Madanan

Abu Vs State of Kerala and Another

Hishad Moosa Jas.v.K. Vs the District Collector and Another