Partly allowed

Paulose Varghese @ M.P.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2011LA.App./586/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Isaacs and Abdul Rehim JJ allowed an appeal against inadequate compensation for plantation properties. They awarded an additional Rs. 1,50,000 for cocoa plants and directed entitlement to statutory benefits under Section 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Allowed appeal to the extent of permitting a further amount of Rs. 1,50,000 for cocoa plants and statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28.

Paulose Varghese @ M.P.Varghese 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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

LA.App..No. 586 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------------------LAR.266/1995 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................

¶7

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS E, F AND H TO K & L/RS OF D CLAIMANT

¶8

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

¶9

**1. POULOSE VARGHESE ALIAS M.P.VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA. (DIED)

¶10

2. MARY VARGHESE, WIFE OF POULOSE VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA.

¶11

3. ROODY VARGHESE, SON OF VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA.

¶12

4. WINNY VARGHESE, SON OF VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA.

¶13

5. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SON OF RAMA WARRIER, CHERANATTU HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, KUMMANODE.

¶14

6. GEETHA VARGHESE, D/O.VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA KARA, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶15

(LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PAUL VARGHESE(D CLAIMANT) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶16

7. GRACY PAUL, AGED 41 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE PAUL VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶17

8. SHERIN MARY PAUL, AGED 23 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE PAUL VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶18

9. KICHU PAUL, AGED 21 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE PAUL VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM OF -DO-

¶19

LA.App..No. 586 of 2008

¶20

10. M.P. VARGHESE, AGED 17 YEARS, (MINOR) SON OF LATE PAUL VARGHESE, MANJUMMEKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN GRACY PAUL.

¶21

ADDL. APPELLANT NO.11 IMPLEADED

¶22

11. BEENA ABRAHAM, KILITHATTIL HOUSE,

¶23

25 K.V., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036, BEING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANT NO.11, VIDE ORDER DATED 31/10/2011 IN I.A.3277/2011 IN LAA.586/2008.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS,

¶25

SRI.JOJO GEORGE, SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHN.

¶26

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶27

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

¶28

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶29

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHEAL.

¶30

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ.

¶33

LAA.NO. 586 of 2008

¶34

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Pius C.Kuriakose ,J.

¶37

Claimants are in appeal. They are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation redetermined by the court for their properties which were acquired for the purpose of Periyar Valley Irrigation Project pursuant to section 3(1) notification dated 18.7.1978. The property was extensive and as there were yielding coconut trees, pepper vines, cocoa plants, coffee plants etc. those items of properties were valued by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as by the Reference Court by adopting the method of capitalisation of income. In this appeal grounds are raised challenging the inadequacy of the compensation redetermined by the Reference Court for the coconut trees, Pepper vines and cocoa plants. But the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are giving thrust to ground No.9 where it is urged that the Reference Court was in error in not awarding any compensation by adopting the method

¶38

LAA.586/2008 2

¶39

of capitalisation of income for the cocoa plants which were 1196 in number. Our attention was drawn by counsel to para 18 of the impugned order. It is stated in that para that the learned Subordinate Judge has declined to award compensation for the cocoa plants by the method of capitalisation of income stating reason that as there were coffee plants, pepper vines and coconut trees on the property there was no land to accommodate

¶40

the cocoa plants. But we find from the judgment that the appellants have been awarded land value of (197.800 cents) of land on the basis that the same is barren land. We find force in the submission of Sri.AV.Thomas that the above land can be taken to be the land where cocoa plants stood. Taking it that way there is every justification for accepting the recommendation of the Commissioner in Ext.A16 and A48 which were accepted by the learned Judge substantially in respect of coconut trees, pepper vines and coffee plants. The only difference the learned Subordinate Judge made was that as against the multiplier of 20 adopted by the Commissioner the learned Subordinate Judge adopted the multiplier of 15 only. Counsel submitted that there is justification for adopting the multiplier of 20 . He submitted

¶41

LAA.586/2008 3

¶42

further that even adopted the multiplier of 15 a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- will have to be paid as compensation for the cocoa plants. The appellant has remitted court fee for a sum of Rs.22,28,200/-. Eventhough submission of Sri.A.V. Thomas is opposed by the learned Government Pleader, on consideration of law and justice we are inclined to accept Mr. Thomas's request. We allow a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for cocoa plants as recommended by the Commissioner by adopting a multiplier of 15. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under section 23(1A) 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act . The appellants will get the proportionate costs also.

¶43

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶44

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶45

pmn/

¶46

LAA.586/2008 4

Paulose Varghese @ M.P.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulose Varghese @ M.P.Varghese v. State of Kerala

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

Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala

Ancy Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Vichithran Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Vs Pottengal Subida