Partly allowed

Ramachandran Unnithan Balchandran Unnith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2011LA.App./56/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the appeal to an extent, directing the refixing of the value of 0.60 Ares of reclaimed land at Rs.37,000/- per Are based on reliance on Ext.A1, aligning with L.A.A. No.374/2009. The judgment confirms the impugned order in all other respects, with statutory benefits applicable for interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of appeal to refix the value of 0.60 Ares of reclaimed land at Rs.37,000/- per Are; no order as to costs.

Ramachandran Unnithan Balchandran Unnith 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 56 of 2011(D)

¶6

------------------------LAR.541/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM ....................

¶7

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶8

¶9

RAMACHANDRAN UNNITHAN BALACHANDRAN UNNITHAN, KAMPIYIL VEEDU, THRIKKADAVOOR,KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶14

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L.A.A.No. 56 OF 2011

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶21

The claimant is in appeal. His property both wet land and reclaimed land situated in Thrikkadavur village were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 16/4/1994 for the purpose of N.H.Bye-pass, Kollam. Under the impugned judgment, the court below has granted enhancement for both categories of land at 65% above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶22

The grievance, which is voiced by the appellant/claimant, is that the court below did not rely on Ext.A1 in full. The argument of Sri.C.A.Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellant was that it is only in respect of wet land that the court below followed Ext.A1. In respect of reclaimed land also Ext.A1 should

¶23

L.A.A..No.56/2011 2

¶24

have been followed completely and the market value could have been refixed at Rs.37,000/- per Are, so submitted the learned counsel.

¶25

The learned Government Pleader Smt.T.T.Josephina however would very fairly bring to our notice the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.374/2009. It was submitted that in that case the rate of Rs.37,000/- per Are awarded by the Reference Court for reclaimed land has been approved by this court. Having considered this submission, we feel that there is justification for relying upon Ext.A1 in full in respect of reclaimed land also.

¶26

Hence, we allow this appeal to the extent of refixing the value of 0.60 Ares of reclaimed land at Rs.37,000/- per Are. In all other respects, the impugned judgment will stand confirmed.

¶27

Needless to mention that for whatever enhancement the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment, he will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (1A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act. However, while provision is made for interest under Section 28, the Registry will have due regard to the conditions which we imposed in our order

¶28

L.A.A..No.56/2011

¶29

¶30

in C.M.Appln.129/2011 .

¶31

The appeal is allowed to the above extent, however without

¶32

any order as to costs.

¶33

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶34