Allowed

Thomas, S/O.Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2011LA.App./62/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed appeals regarding land acquisition compensation. Adjusting the land value based on a reasonable ratio and enhancing building compensation by 20% over PWD rates, the court awarded enhanced compensation and statutory benefits to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; claimants entitled to Rs.1,21,820/- enhancement for building value and all statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Act.

Thomas, S/O.Emmanuel 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 62 of 2010() -----------------------LAR.15/2009 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶7

¶8

SRI.THOMAS, S/O.EMMANNUEL, THOTTUMKAL, KARIMKUNNOM, THODUPUZHA (VIA).

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP DIVISION, PWD PONKUNNAM, KANJIRAPPILLY.

¶14

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO.662/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L.A.A.Nos. 62 & 662 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Balakrishnan, J.

¶21

The claimants are in appeal. The properties in these two cases are categorized under Group IV-B. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.17,777/- per Are. The Reference Court refixed the land value at Rs.52,600/- per Are. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that land value fixed by the Reference Court is too low when compared to the importance of the locality in which those lands are situated. The Land Acquisition Officer while refixing the land value found that approximately 80% of the value fixed in respect of lands categorised as III (B) would be the value of the land coming under category IV-B. It is seen that the ratio adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is reasonable and as such adopting the same ratio, we find that the value of the property covered in these two cases can be fixed at Rs.34,000/- per cent.

¶22

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

¶23

LAA.Nos.62 & 662/2010 2

¶24

appellants that in the property acquired from the claimant in L.A.A. No.662/2010 there was a building for which value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is Rs. 6,90,352/-. The learned counsel for the appellants claims that the value of the building was fixed based on the PWD rate. It is common knowledge that the rate fixed by the PWD would be always low when compared

¶25

to the actual value of the building. Taking note of that fact, we find that the value of the building can be enhanced by 20% and as such the appellant in L.A.A. No.662/2010 is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.1,21,820/- as the value of the building in addition to the value fixed the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶26

The appeals will stand allowed as above. The claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment.

¶27

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶28

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶29

dpk

Thomas, S/O.Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas, S/O.Emmanuel 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

State of Kerala Vs Gervasis

Valiyapeediyyakkal Kammukutty Vs Spl Tahsildar

Airport Director Vs K.P.Kunhimutty

Jamal Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Thomas,S/O.Emmanuel Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Mannathkandi Viswan