Partly allowed

Kappan Shamsudheen v. the District Collector

Kerala HC28 Jan 2011LA.App./724/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an award appeal where the High Court re-fixed the land compensation value at Rs. 4,050/- per cent. Applying Supreme Court precedent on large acquisitions, the court deducted 10% from a higher benchmark, allowing the appeal partially.

What did the court decide?

Land compensation re-fixed at Rs. 4,050/- per cent; appeal allowed to that extent; statutory benefits granted.

Kappan Shamsudheen Vs the District Collector — Partition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 724 of 2004(C) -----------------------------LAR.146/1998 of SUB COURT, MANJERI ....................

¶3

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS.

¶4

¶5

KAPPAN SHAMSUDHEEN,S/O,KAPPEN ABOOBACKER PANAKKAD, HAJIYARPALLI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶6

NAFEESA, W/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶7

ALI, S/O./ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶8

YOUSAF, S/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶9

SUBAIDA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶10

SEENATH, D/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶11

ATHIKKA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶12

MUHAMMED ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶13

AYSHABI, D/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO.

¶14

ARIFA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO. 11. SANIRA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶15

LAA.724/04

¶16

-2-

¶17

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS.

¶18

¶19

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶20

THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SC, KSIDC FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶22

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

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

¶24

L. A. A. No.724 of 2004

¶25

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2011

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶28

The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Panakkad village of Malappuram district were acquired for the purpose of the KSIDC. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,360/- per cent and the Reference Court under the impugned judgment would only confirm the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. The only relief which was given to the appellants was to award to them interest on the solatium component of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶29

Sri.Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the

¶30

appellants would bring to our notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in LAA.1230/03 and that of

¶31

L. A. A. No.724 of 2004 -2-

¶32

another Bench of this Court in LAA.766/05. Sri.Babu S. Nair submitted that under the earlier judgment, this Court has re-fixed the value of identical lands at Rs.4,000/- per cent while under the subsequent judgment, the value has been re-fixed at Rs.4,500/- per cent. Sri.Babu S. Nair requested that the subsequent Division Bench judgment be followed and the value be re-fixed at Rs.4,500/- per cent. He would however fairly submit that in this case where the appellants have limited their claim to Rs.4,360/- per cent the maximum enhancement that can be granted to the appellants is only at the rate of Rs.4,360/- per cent.

¶33

The submissions of Sri.Babu S. Nair were resisted by Sri.Jayapradeep, Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. Sri.Jayapradeep's submissions were supported by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader. The question is as to which among the two Division Bench judgments should be followed by us. Though we find

¶34

L. A. A. No.724 of 2004 -3-

¶35

some merit in the submission of Sri.Jayapradeep that the subsequent Division Bench came to award higher rates than what is awarded in LAA.1230/03 only because that Division Bench was not appraised of the fact situation, we feel that being the subsequent Division Bench decision which is yet to be reviewed, the subsequent decision cannot be ignored by us. But we notice another aspect of the matter. The properties under acquisition in this appeal is a large extent. The Supreme Court has consistently taken the view by judgments in LAO & Sub Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 (SC) 2552), Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority and another (2007(7) SCC 614) and State of J&K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 (SC) 2470) that when large extents of properties are acquired it is proper to deduct a certain percentage in view of the largeness of the extent of properties. We feel that this is a case where 10% deduction can be made from the value of

¶36

L. A. A. No.724 of 2004

¶37

-4-

¶38

Rs.4,500/- per cent to be fixed on the basis of the subsequent Division Bench judgment in view of the largeness of the extent. When it is so done, the market

¶39

value of the land under acquisition will have to be re-fixed at Rs.4,050/- per cent. It is accordingly re-fixed.

¶40

The appeal is allowed to that extent. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.

¶41

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶42

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶43

kns/-

¶44

L. A. A. No.724 of 2004 -5-

Kappan Shamsudheen v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kappan Shamsudheen v. the District Collector

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

P.v.Biyathu Vs Special Tahsildar (LA),N.H.NO.1,KZD

Eldhose K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs Babu Thomas

Alice Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs the State of Kerala and Another

Melakath Alipathu Vs the District Collector and Another