Allowed

Dony George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2011LA.App./830/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam fixed the market value of land acquired for a tourism project at Rs.1,20,000 per Are, relying on a prior judgment. The Court allowed the appeal, granting statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Market value re-fixed at Rs.1,20,000 per Are and entitlement to benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Dony George 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 &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932

¶6

LA.App..No. 830 of 2006()

¶7

------------------------LAR.3/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶9

¶10

DONY GEORGE, W/O. M.V.GEORGE, MEENAPPALLIL, KUTTAMANGALAM MURI, KAINAKARY VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR,

¶16

TOURISM DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶18

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

LAA. No. 830 of 2006

¶21

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶24

The claimant is in appeal. His property in Mullackal Village within the area of Alappuzha Municipal Town was acquired for the purpose of implementation of a tourism project of the Department of Tourism, State of Kerala. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5-7-2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.30,973/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment has re-fixed the same at Rs.1 lakh per Are. This was done by the reference court relying on Ext.A1 judgment. Smt. N.Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the judgment in LAA. No. 1425 of 2007. It is seen that the above judgment pertains to acquisition of identical land for the same purpose and that under the above judgment the market value of the

¶25

LAA. No. 830/06

¶26

-2-

¶27

land has been re-fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- per Are. Accordingly, her request is that this appeal be allowed to the extent of re-fixing the value of land at Rs.1,20,000/- per Are. Smt. T.T.Josephina, learned Govt. Pleader opposed the above request. She submitted that before the court below the appellant relied on EXt.A1. Ext.A1 has been set aside by this court and the value paid under Ext.A1 has been reduced considerably. She placed before us a copy of the judgment under which Ext.A1 was set aside. We notice the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 576 of 2009 by which the appeal preferred by the Government in this case was dismissed. It is seen that under that judgment it is clearly observed that in other cases pertaining to the acquisition the properties acquired for the same purpose in the same village has been awarded more value than the value of Rs.1 lakh per Are. Obviously this court had in its mind the judgment in LAA. No. 1425 of 2007 while dismissing LAA.

¶28

LAA. No. 830/06

¶29

-3-

¶30

No. 576 of 2009. The argument of the learned Govt. Pleader is that as the appellant had placed reliance on Ext.A1 and Ext.A1 has been interfered with in appeal and market value paid under A1 is reduced has some attractiveness. But we cannot ignore the fact that the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 1425 of 2007 is in respect of identical property acquired for the same purpose and pertains to the very same notification. The acquisition under Ext.A1 was for a different purpose pursuant to a different notification. The claim of the appellant before the land acquisition officer, the reference court and this court is Rs.1,50,000/- per Are. Under the above circumstance, notwithstanding the opposition of the learned Govt. Pleader we are inclined to rely on the judgment in judgment in LAA. No. 1425 of 2007 as it is not disputed that the above judgment has become final. Accordingly, we allow the appeal re-fixing market value at Rs.1,20,000/- per Are.

¶31

LAA. No. 830/06

¶32

-4-

¶33

The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶34

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶35

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶36

ksv/-

Dony George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dony George 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sathi Devi Vs State of Kerala

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Christy Vallantheen

I.G.Asokan Vs Special Tahsildar (La)

Managing Director, K.S.I.D.C. Vs Basheer

State of Kerala Vs K.M.Ramesan

Special Tahsildar(La) Kozhikode & Anr. Vs Subhadra Amma and Others