Allowed

Scientific&Industrial Research Director v. a.R.Padmini Bai

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011LA.App./78/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Requisitioning Authority appealed a land acquisition award of Rs. 10,000/- per Aare, challenging both the uniform categorisation of the land and the excessive compensation. The High Court upheld the single category but found the uniform rate excessive compared to a related acquisition award

What did the court decide?

The uniform market value of the land is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per Aare. Claimants are entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(IA), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act

Scientific&Industrial Research Director Vs a.R.Padmini Bai — Land Acquisition | 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 TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 78 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------LAR.341/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT CSIR :-

¶5

----------------------------------------------------------

¶6

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR, REGIONAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS IN LOWER COURT AND 1ST RESPONDENT :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. A.R.PADMINI BAI, RESIDING AT N.P.X/427, JAYA BHAVAN, KOTTAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. B.VIJAYA KUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

3. P.VIJAYA DEEVI, RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

4. P.JAYASREE THANKAM RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

5. VIJAYALAKSHMI THANKAM, JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

6. B.VIJAYA KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

LA.App..No. 78 of 2006

¶16

7. B.VIJAYA MOHANAN, RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

8. B.VIJAYA PRASAD, RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, PULLOOR KONAM OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

9. M.N.SREEKANTAN NAIR, RESIDING AT NADUVATHU THEKKE MELATHIL VEEDU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

10. GOWRIKUTTY AMMAL, SYEDHUKUTTY AMMA, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI NILAYAM, KOLIACODE, NEMOM.

¶20

11. VELAYUDHAN NAIR S., RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI NILAYAM, KOLIACODE, NEMOM.

¶21

12. S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI NILAYAM, KOLIACODE, NEMOM.

¶22

13. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI NILAYAM, KOLIACODE, NEMOM.

¶23

14. N.SREEKUMARAN NADAR, RESIDING AT SHEELA BHAVAN, PERUMPUZHA KOTTAKONAM, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

15. SYAMALA, RESIDING AT EDATHOTTU VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA KOTTAKONAM, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

16. VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT PERUMPUZHA (DIED) (RECORDED) KONATHU EDATHATTU VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

IT IS RECORDED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO IMPLEAD LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 16TH RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DT.29.7.2010 IN I.A.No.2760/2010.

¶27

17. REGHUVARAN, RESIDING AT PERUMPUZHA KONATHU EDATHATTU VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

18. VIJAYAKUMARI, RESIDING AT PERUMPUZHA KONATHU EDATHATTU VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

LA.App..No. 78 of 2006

¶30

19. SREEKANDAN, RESIDING AT PERUMPUZHA KONATHU EDATHATTU VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

20. SULOCHANA, RESIDING AT PERUMPUZHA KONATHU EDATHATTU VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

21. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT THRIKANNAPURATHU VEEDU, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶33

22. BHARATHI, RESIDING AT VELANKONATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, PAPPANAMCODE P.O.

¶34

23. KAMALAMMA, RESIDING AT VELANKONATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, PAPPANAMCODE P.O.

¶35

24. R.SARADHA, RESIDING AT VELANKONATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶36

25. RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT VELANKONATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶37

26. G.GOPI, S/O.GOVINDAN NADAR, NADUTHETTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAKONAM, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶38

27. BALAKRISHNAN NADAR, S/O.GOVINDAN NADAR, NADUTHETTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAKONAM, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶39

28. REVEENDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NADAR, NADUTHETTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAKONAM, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶40

29. RAJENDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NADAR, NADUTHETTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAKONAM, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶41

30. SULOCHANA, D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY OF NADUTHETTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAKONAM, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶42

31. RAJAMMA, W/O. KRISHNAN NADAR, RESIDING AT CHAITHENNYA, KOLAMKONAM, KARUMAN DESOM NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶43

LA.App..No. 78 of 2006

¶44

32. ASOK KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, RESIDING AT CHAITHENNYA, KOLAMKONAM, KARUMAN DESOM

¶45

NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶46

33. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, RESIDING AT CHAITHENNYA, KOLAMKONAM, KARUMAN DESOM NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶47

34. C.SUKUMARI, D/O.SUKUMARAN NADAR, RESIDING AT CHAITHENNYA, KOLAMKONAM, KARUMAN DESOM

¶48

NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶49

35. SHEEBA, D/O.PHILOMINA, KOLLAMKONAM, MANUKULADICHA MANGALAM, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶50

36. SHEEJA, D/O.PHILOMINA, KOLLAMKONAM, MANUKULADICHA MANGALAM, NEMOM VILLAGE.

¶51

37. SHAJI, S/O.SUKUMARAN NADAR, DO.DO.

¶52

38. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶53

R38 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR 9-14&26-37 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R3 TO 8 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R22 TO R24

¶54

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

jvt

¶56

LA.App..No. 78 of 2006

¶57

ORDER IN I.A.Nos.142/2006 & 2323/2006 IN L.A.A.No.78/2006

¶58

Dismissed.

¶59

SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶60

SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

8.2.2011.

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

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

¶65

---------------------------------L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶66

Dated this the 8^th day of February 2011

¶67

J U D G M E N T

¶68

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶69

The Requisitioning Authority, the Scientific and Industrial Research Director challenges in this appeal what he describes as the excessiveness of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Reference Court. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 3(1) notification published on 13.1.1982 (13.4.1982). The acquisition was of land in Nemom village for the purpose of expansion of C.S.I.R. complex. The total extent of land acquired was about 87.33 Ares. The L.A.Officer included the properties under acquisition in three categories A, B and C and awarded the value of Rs.4791/-, 4072/- and 2851/- per Are respectively for properties in categories A, B and C. The

¶70

L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶71

-: 2 :-

¶72

Reference Court under the impugned award has refixed the land value uniformly at Rs.10,000/- per Are. The evidence before the Reference court regarding the market value consists mainly of Ext.A1 on the side of the claimants and Ext.R1 Basis document and Ext.R2 group sketch on the side of the respondent/Government and Requisitioning Authority. On the side of the claimants themselves were examined as witnesses. On the side of the respondents the Officer of the Requisitioning Authority was examined as RW1. The learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment would completely do away with the categorisation adopted by the L.A.Officer and would include the entire property under acquisition one and same category. Relying on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R.No.13/95, the learned Sub Judge would award a uniform rate of Rs.10,000/- per Are for all the properties.

¶73

In this appeal various grounds are raised by the Requisitioning Authority assailing the award of the

¶74

L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶75

-: 3 :-

¶76

Reference Court. Prominently it is contended that the court below was not justified in awarding uniform rate for the properties under acquisition, thus completely doing away with the categorisation. It is also urged that at any rate market value of Rs.10,000/- per Are awarded is excessive.

¶77

Very extensive arguments were addressed before us by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sen on behalf of the appellant and Sri.R.S.Kalkura and Sri.G.S.Raghunath, for the contesting claimants. We were taken through the various items of evidence and we have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and we have also gone through those items of evidence to which our attention was drawn. According to us, the question arising for consideration first and important is whether the learned Sub Judge was justified in completely doing away with the categorisation adopted by the awarding officer and treating the entire property under acquisition to be in the same category. The second question is whether the market

¶78

L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶79

-: 4 :-

¶80

value fixed uniformly at Rs.10,000/- per Are by the court below is excessive.

¶81

We shall deal first with the first question. Even though the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sen in respect of his argument that the learned Sub Judge was not justified in doing away with the categorisation, were pursuasive. We feel that in this particular case where the Government has not produced even a full text of the award and note to award and has not adduced any evidence which will justify the categorisation made by the L.A.Officer., the learned Sub Judge's action in treating the entire properties under acquisition to be in one category will have to be sustained. We approve the above action and answer question No.1 in the positive.

¶82

Now we come to what is the correct market value to be awarded. It was very extensive arguments addressed before us by both Sri.R.S.Kalkura and Sri.G.S.Raghunath justifying the award of the Reference Court. But what we

¶83

L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶84

-: 5 :-

¶85

find is that the only item of evidence on the basis of which the learned Sub Judge could have enhanced the land value is Ext.A1. Ext.A1 as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent was in respect of acquisition of other lands pursuant to the very same notification. Ext.A1 certainly has considerable probative value while determining the market value of the land under acquisition in this case. Under Ext.A1 the learned Sub Judge has awarded uniform value of Rs.10,000/- per Are. The learned Sub Judge awarded the same value for the properties in this case assuming that the properties covered by Ext.A1 and properties under acquisition are identical. The above assumption was wrong. Under Ext.A1 we notice that the awarding officer awarded the following rates to the properties covered by that case. A category Rs.8780/- per Are, B category Rs.7464/- and C category Rs.6435/- per Are. This means that for the best and the most valuable property covered in Ext.A1 by the L.A.Officer was Rs.8780/-

¶86

L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶87

-: 6 :-

¶88

per Are. While for the best category covered by impugned award, the L.A.Officer awarded Rs.4791/- per Are. When the same awarding officer awarded different rates for properties acquired by him, it is obviously that properties for which higher value is awarded were superior than properties for which lesser value is awarded. A perusal of Ext.A1 and the impugned award will show that for the best category covered in the impugned award only 55% the value which was awarded to the best category covered by Ext.A1. At the same time, we do not think, having made reappraisal of the entire evidence on record that the ratio fixed by the Awarding Officer between the value of the property covered in Ext.A1 and the present award is correct. We feel that the ratio between the best category covered by Ext.A1 and the best category covered by the impugned award is 100 : 80. In view of the above finding we find that for the property under acquisition in this case correct market value based on Ext.A1 is to be refixed. We

¶89

L.A.A. No.78 of 2006

¶90

refix the value of the land under acquisition uniformly at Rs.8,000/- per Are. Claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(IA) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act. Appeal allowed to the abve extent. In the above circumstance, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶91

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶92

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶93

Jvt

Scientific&Industrial Research Director v. a.R.Padmini Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Scientific&Industrial Research Director v. a.R.Padmini Bai

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

Fathima Vs P.v.Paulose

Rajan Babu Vs Viswanatha Pillai

Panayan Rajan Vs Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin

St.Mary'S Forine Church Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Bhasura Devi

State of Kerala Vs P.Sadasivan