Partly allowed

Poulose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2011LA.App./694/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition appeal concerning property at Nedumbassery for an airport, the Court found the lower court's 30% compensation enhancement for the building inadequate. The Court awarded a further Rs. 30,000 to the appellant over the Land Acquisition Officer's award, allowing interest under Section 28 subject to prior conditions, and granted statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Award of further Rs. 30,000 as compensation for the building; interest under Section 28 subject to prior conditions; entitlement to statutory benefits granted.

Poulose 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 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 694 of 2009(C) ------------------------------LAR.140/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶7

¶8

POULOSE, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, AREEKKAL, AVANANCODE, VIA-NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L. A. A. No.694 of 2009

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶21

The claimant is in appeal. His land and building were

¶22

acquired for the purposes of the International Airport at Nedumbassery. This appeal is confined to claim for enhanced value for the building which existed on the acquired property. The Land Acquisition Authority would award a total amount of Rs.1,89,100/- obviously on the basis of valuation prepared by the Public Works Department. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied on reports submitted by an Advocate Commissioner on the basis of an inspection conducted with the assistance of a qualified Engineer. The commissioner reported that the age of the front two rooms of the buildings was only five years as

¶23

L. A. A. No.694 of 2009 -2-

¶24

against the age of 15 years fixed by the Land Acquisition Authority. Similarly as regards the remaining portion of the building also the Commissioner reported that the age was only 10 years as against the age of 15 years fixed by Land Acquisition Authority. The court below was not very much impressed by the Commission Report. The court below would only apply the rule of thumb and enhance the compensation for the building by 30% and re-fix value of the building at Rs.2,45,830/-.

¶25

Sri.George Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellant would place strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in LAA.534/08 and submit that in that case this Court has accepted the same report filed by the same Commissioner who was assisted by the same Engineer. The learned counsel requested that the Commission Report be relied on and the enhanced claim in this appeal (Rs.1 lakh) be allowed in full.

¶26

L. A. A. No.694 of 2009

¶27

-3-

¶28

On behalf of the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority, Smt.Amminikutty, the learned counsel would oppose all the submissions of Mr.George Abraham. According to her, the Commission Report is not at all dependable and she pointed out that unlike other cases in the present case the Engineer who prepared the valuation report was not even examined.

¶29

We have considered the submissions. It is not clear from the Commission Report as to what was the total area of that portion of the building which was constructed within a period of five years. At the same time, we feel that the entire building was aged only ten years. Keeping that in mind and also keeping in mind the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD's published schedule of rates is not a pragmatic idea, we feel that the enhancement granted by the court below is not adequate. Taking into account all relevant inputs in the matter, we

¶30

L. A. A. No.694 of 2009 -4-

¶31

award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer

¶32

as further compensation for the building.

¶33

The appeal is allowed to the above extent only, however without any order as to costs. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits also. However, while provision is made in the decree for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us by this Court in the order in C. M. Application No.869/09.

¶34

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶35

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶36

kns/-

¶37

L. A. A. No.694 of 2009 -5-

Poulose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poulose 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs B.Radhamani

Managing Director, Ksidc Vs Paramban Vasu and Another

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

State of Kerala Vs Saraswathi Pillai

M/S.Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and Another

John Mathew Vs Abdul Salim Sahib Riyaz Ahammed