Remanded

The Secretary, Hosdurg Service Co-Op.Ban v. the Special Tahsildar and Others

Kerala HC4 Mar 2011LA.App./620/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the Land Acquisition Reference to the Subordinate Judge. The Court ordered that the appellant be permitted to introduce a certified copy of a specific land document as evidence, allowing the lower court to re-fix market value and compensation for injurious affection proportionately, subject to specified conditions regarding cou

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; LAR remanded to Subordinate Judge; opportunity granted to appellant to introduce certified copy of document No.1008/2000 as evidence; revised judgment to be pas

The Secretary, Hosdurg Service Co-Op.Ban Vs the Special… — 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 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 620 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------LAR.6/2003 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶7

¶8

THE SECRETARY,HOSDURG SERVICE CO-OP BANK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.DINESH RAO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & STATE

¶11

¶12

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION, N.H.KANNUR.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,NH DIVISION, KANNUR.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

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

¶18

L. A. A. No.620 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2011

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶22

The claimant/Secretary, Hosdrug Service Co-operative Bank is in appeal. Their property in Hosdrug village was acquired at the instance of the Railways in Kanhangad village for the construction of a Railway over bridge. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total land value of Rs.15,703.25/- for the entire property. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence would re-fix the land value at the rate of Rs.5,987.90/- per cent. The appellant had another claim for compensation for injurious affection of his un-acquired property. According to the appellant about 1.852 cents of land which was un-acquired had been reduced to a tiny rectangular plot. The court below awarded

¶23

L. A. A. No.620 of 2010

¶24

-2-

¶25

a total amount of Rs.11,115/- as compensation for injurious

¶26

affection.

¶27

The main ground raised by the appellant is that the court below went wrong in not relying on document No.1008/2000 of the Sub Registry, Hosdrug. This document according to Mr.Dinesh Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant reflected a land value of Rs.40,000/- per cent. Certified copy of this document had been produced and could have been marked by the learned Sub Judge under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act. The court below refused to consider the document saying that a certified copy is not produced. A certified copy obtained from the court was placed before us by Sri.Dinesh Rao. He requested that the market value be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent. He further requested that compensation for injurious affection also can be re-determined taking the market value to be

¶28

L. A. A. No.620 of 2010

¶29

-3-

¶30

Rs.40,000/- per cent.

¶31

All the submissions of Sri.Dinesh Rao were opposed by Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned Government Pleader. She drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.337/07. It was submitted by her that for identical land acquired for the same purpose this Court has fixed land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. According to her, the maximum land value that can be granted is Rs.10,000/- per cent and there is no justification for increasing the value beyond that and that compensation for injurious affection can only be proportionately increased. Sri.Dinesh Rao, however would insist that document No.1008/2000 be relied on.

¶32

We have considered the rival submissions. May be it is true that certified copy of the above document was produced by the appellant before the court below. But the

¶33

L. A. A. No.620 of 2010

¶34

-4-

¶35

appellant never introduced the document in evidence while he was giving oral evidence. The appellant himself is to be blamed for that. We are however, inclined to afford opportunity to the appellant to have this document also considered along with other items of evidence. However, such opportunity will be given only on conditions. The result of the above discussions therefore, is as follows:-

¶36

The judgment and decree under appeal are set

¶37

aside. LAR.6/03 is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court Hosdrug. The learned Sub Judge will permit the appellant to bring the certified copy of document No.1008/2000 in evidence. If the respondent wants to adduce any counter evidence they also should be permitted to do so. The learned Subordinate Judge will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be on record. It is

¶38

L. A. A. No.620 of 2010

¶39

-5-

¶40

needless to mention that if market value of the land is refixed at a higher rate than what is presently fixed, the compensation for injurious affection also will have to be increased proportionately. The correct percentage of injurious affection should be re-determined by the court below. The above judgment remanding the LAR to the court below will become operative only subject to the following conditions:-

¶41

The appellant pays a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days from today and produces receipt before the court below.

¶42

In case the appellant becomes eligible for more enhancement over what is presently awarded under the impugned judgment then such enhancement will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 30/01/10 till date

¶43

L. A. A. No.620 of 2010 -6-

¶44

(04/03/11).

¶45

The Registry will refund only 75% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the counsel for the appellant. Parties are directed to enter appearance before the court below on 29/03/11. The court below will complete the enquiry and pass revised award within two months of the courts re-opening after midsummer holidays.

¶46

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶47

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶48

kns/-

The Secretary, Hosdurg Service Co-Op.Ban v. the Special Tahsildar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Hosdurg Service Co-Op.Ban v. the Special Tahsildar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soj, S/O.Kamalolbhavan Vs State of Kerala

General Manager Vs K.K. Abdul Majeed

State Vs Devaki Amma

State of Kerala Vs B.Radhamani

Managing Director, Ksidc Vs Paramban Vasu and Another

State of Kerala Vs Sankaran Kutty