Partly allowed

M.M.Sulekha Beevi @ Mrs.Sulekha Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2011LA.App./745/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala redetermined market value for land acquired for a municipal dumping yard. The court upheld the four-group categorisation of wet lands but merged groups C and D. It fixed values at Rs.3 Lakhs, Rs.2.4 Lakhs, and Rs.2.1 Lakhs per Acre respectively and partially allowed both appeals.

What did the court decide?

Market value for Group A fixed at Rs.3 Lakhs/Are, B at Rs.2.4 Lakhs/Are, and C/D at Rs.2.1 Lakhs/Are.

M.M.Sulekha Beevi @ Mrs.Sulekha Babu 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 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 745 of 2010() ------------------------(LAR NO.383/2008 ON THE FILE OF 3RD ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM)

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW:

¶7

¶8

M.M.SULEKHA BEEVI ALIAS MRS.SULEKHA BABU D/O.MANADATHU MAKKARAU PILLA,AMBER PARK, CANON SHED ROAD,ERNAKULAM REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,K.A.ANTONY, S/O.AUGUSTINE, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE,KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)S/RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,THROUGH SPECIAL TAHSIDAR (LA)GENERAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KALAMASSERY,REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BY SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN(R1) SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER (SC)

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 988 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

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

¶17

L.A.A.Nos. 745 & 988 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶21

The claimant as well as the requisitioning authority – the

¶22

Kalamassery Municipality are in appeals being aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Ernakulam in L.A.R. No.383/2008. The properties were acquired at the instance of the Municipality for the establishment of a dumping yard for the Municipality.

¶23

The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties under acquisition in Groups A, B, C & D. Properties included in group A were reclaimed wet lands with National Highway road frontage. For these properties, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.2,24,350/- per Are. Properties included in group B were reclaimed wet lands at a depth of about 7 meters from the National Highway road level. For these properties, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate

¶24

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010 2

¶25

of Rs.2,14,147/- per Are. Properties included in group C were wet lands having National Highway frontage but at a level of 7 meters below the road. For these propertoes the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,03,950/- per Are. Included in group D were interior wet land without any road frontage and for these properties the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.1,42,750/- per Are.

¶26

Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied mostly on Exts.A2 and A3 in support of her claim for enhanced land value. Apart from that, she relied also on commission reports Exts.A5 and C1. Ext.A5 was a commission report filed in a suit which was filed by the claimant in anticipation of the land acquisition proceedings, whereas Ext.C1 report was submitted by a commissioner appointed by the court below. As regards Ext.A5, it is stated that the inspection resulting from that report was done with notice to both sides. But as regards Ext.C1, the Municipality's complaint is that the above inspection was conducted by the commissioner without giving notice to the Municipality. But as per Ext.A5, the level difference between

¶27

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010 3

¶28

the properties included in groups A and B was between 5 meters to one and half meters. As per Ext.C1 report (though the inspection was without giving notice to the Municipality),the report is that the level difference is between 14 meters to 2 meters. Ext.A2 was a document relating to purchase of property by National Safety Council. Ext.A2 is a pre notification document executed on 24/5/2005. Ext.A2 is in respect of land situated some one and half Kms to the west of the land under acquisition. Ext.A2 is property by the side of the road that proceeds from Kalamalssery Junction to Eloor side. Ext.A2 is in respect of original dry land, a house plot. Ext.A2 reflected land value of Rs. 3,57,688/- per Are. Ext.A3 is in respect of land situated at HMT junction on National Highway at a distance of some one and half Kms to the south of the acquired properties. Ext.A3 reflected land value of Rs.2,22,222/- per Are. Properties in Ext.A3 is comparable to the properties included in Group B. A reading of the impugned judgment will show that the learned Subordinate Judge had relied mostly on the property covered by Ext.A3 for refixing the market value of the land under acquisition. The learned Subordinate Judge

¶29

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010 4

¶30

would take the view that there was no justification for including the properties under acquisition in as many as four categories. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, there was justification for only two categories and for properties which were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in categories A & B, the Reference Court refixed the value at Rs.244,444/- per Are. For properties which were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in categories C & D, the learned Subordinate Judge would refix the value at Rs.2,22,222/- per Are.

¶31

In the appeal preferred by the Municipality, they have raised various grounds challenging what they describe as the excessiveness of the compensation awarded by the court below. In the appeal preferred by the claimant she challenges what is described as an inadequacy of the compensation redetermined by the court below. Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri.M.K.Aboobacker,learned counsel for the Municipality have addressed arguments before us on the basis of the grounds raised in their respective appeal memoranda. Mr.Aboobacker was supported in all his submissions by the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan.

¶32

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010 5

¶33

Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel to the various documents available in these cases.

¶34

We have very anxiously considered the submissions. We have made a quick survey of the evidence available on record, particularly Exts.A2, A3 and commission reports Ext.A5 and C1. We are not able to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having taken the view that the properties, which were included in groups A & B by the Land Acquisition Officer, were eligible to be included in one and the same category. According to us, there is justification for maintaining the categorisation of A & B as maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer. We also find that the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in having separate groups A, B and C. But we are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, where properties included in C and D belong to the very same category and properties in D which had road access through properties included in C, were also eligible to be included in C category. In short, according to us all the properties which were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in group D are eligible to be included in Category C and three

¶35

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010 6

¶36

categories A B & C will have to be maintained.

¶37

Now, the most important question, which arises for decision, is what is the correct market value to be redermined for the various items of properties included in this case. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in completely discarding Ext. A2 which is a significant document executed in favour of a Government of India organisation and there is justification for presuming that the said document records a genuine transaction and the value shown as paid therein is value actually paid. There is force in the submission of Mr.Aboobacker that the property covered by Ext.A2 was superior in quality than even the A category properties. But, then it should not be forgetten that properties in A category were enjoying the direct frontage of National Highway. Frontage of National Highway is a plus factor while the level difference from National Highway is a clear minus factor for properties in category B. Quality wise the property covered by Ext.A2 was superior even to the properties in category A. According to us, the value reflected in Ext.A2 also has to be kept in mind while fixing the market value.

¶38

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010 7

¶39

Keeping in mind the value reflected in Exts.A2 and A3, we are of the view that the market value of the land,which is included by the Land Acquisition Officer in Group A, will have to be refixed at Rs.3 Lakhs per Are. It is accordingly refixed.

¶40

The Land Acquisition Officer has taken the view that the correct value of properties in B category is 95% of the value to be awarded for category A. Similarly, he is of the view that the correct value of the properties in group C is 90% of the value of the properties included in group A. It is very clear to our mind that the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of properties included in groups A, B and C is not correct. According to us, the correct ratio between three items of properties should be 100 : 80: 70.

¶41

Having determined the value of the properties in category A to be Rs.3 Lakhs, we are of the view that the correct value to be awarded for the properties included in category B is Rs.2,40,000/- per Are. It is accordingly refixed. Similarly, properties, which were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in categories C and D, have to be awarded value at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per Are. In fact, the correct value of the land

¶42

L.A.A.Nos.745 & 988/2010

¶43

¶44

included in category D, is only Rs.1,65,000/- per Are. But in this case properties included in categories C and D were lying contiguously and since the properties in C category were having road access, properties in D category also should be assumed to have road access. In that view of the matter, properties in D category also will get value at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per Are (the same value as C category properties) .

¶45

It is needless to mention that the appellant/ claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the compensation redetermined on the above basis.

¶46

Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶47

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶48

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶49

dpk

M.M.Sulekha Beevi @ Mrs.Sulekha Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Sulekha Beevi @ Mrs.Sulekha Babu 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

Chief Project Manager,Railway Electrific Vs Aji Kurien

Suresh Babu Vs Jose Alex

Sri.C.K.Bhaskaran Vs Smt.Mottemmal Seenath and Another

K.S.I.D.C Vs Muhammed Shaheer

K.S.I.D.C Vs Pari Nafeesa

Balachandran Narayanan Vs State of Kerala