Partly allowed

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji v. the Special Deputy Collector (La)

Kerala HC17 Feb 2011LA.App./841/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment redetermines the market value of land acquired by K.S.E.B. The Court rejected the original award but refused to accept the claimant's specific sale deed evidence fully, instead fixing the compensation at Rs.21,000 per cent. The claimant's appeal for enhancement was allowed partially.

What did the court decide?

The appeal of the claimant was allowed partially with the market value fixed at Rs.21,000 per cent. The requisitioning authority's appeal was dismissed.

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji Vs the Special Deputy… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 841 of 2006(A) ------------------------LAR.18/2002 of SUB COURT, TIRUR

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT:

¶7

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

¶8

CHOLAKKAL CHOPPALA HAMZA HAJI, S/O.POKKU, KADUNGOTHUKUNDU, P.O. VALAVANNUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.R.MEERA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) K.S.E.B., KOZHIKODE.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION & CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE, K.S.E.B. UP HILL, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, P.O. PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R3

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1475 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Order on I.A.No.4740/06 in LAA 841/06

¶18

17-2-2011 Dismissed

¶19

Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE.

ul/-

[true copy]

P.S.to Judge.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2011.

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶27

Claimant as well as the requisitioning authority are aggrieved by the award of the Land Reference Court, Tirur in LAR 18/02. LAA 1475/07 is the appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority, K.S.E.B. LAA 841/06 is the appeal preferred by the claimant. The property was in Codacal village and the acquisition was pursuant to S.4(1) notification dated 22.10.99 for the establishment of a 33 K.V. sub station of the Electricity Board. The property was a garden land and was situated opposite to Codacal tile factory in a relatively important area of Tirur. The Land Acquisition

¶28

L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

Officer awarded a land value of Rs.9,000/- per cent relying on Ext.R1 basis document which reflected a value of Rs.7,500/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the claimant mainly relied on Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2 proceedings of the Registrar u/s 45B of the Stamp Act. Ext.A2 proceedings were initiated in respect of Ext.A1 sale deed itself. Ext.A1 is a properly perused document which reflects a land value of Rs.38,000/- per cent. As per Ext.A2 there was under valuation in Ext.A1 for the purpose of stamp duty. The Court below discarded Ext.A1 from consideration on the reason that Ext.A1 is executed a few months after the property was inspected for the purpose of acquisition. The Court below also noticed that

¶31

L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

Ext.A1 property was also acquired for the same purpose. According to the Court below it was probable that anticipating the Land Acquisition proceedings and for the purpose of taking a higher claim of land value an artificial value was shown in Ext.A1. Ext.A2 was discarded by the Court below relying on certain judgments which take the view that the proceedings for the purposes of stamp duty are not to be taken into account for determining the market value u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶34

In the appeal preferred by the claimants grounds are raised challenging what is described as the gross inadequacy in the compensation redetermined by the reference Court. In the appeal preferred by the

¶35

L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

requisitioning authority the challenge is against the excessiveness of compensation granted by the reference Court. We have heard Sri. K.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel were supported by the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

As already stated Ext.A1 is the one document on which the claimant mostly relies in support of his claim for enhancement. The Advocate Commissioner had conducted a local inspection and compared Ext.A1 property with the acquired property and found that acquired property is as important and valuable as Ext.A1 property. The learned Subordinate Judge

¶39

L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

discarded Ext.A1 from consideration noticing that Ext.A1 is brought into existence after the properties were inspected for the purpose of acquisition proceedings. According to the Court below it is probable that higher value was shown in anticipation of the land acquisition proceedings.

¶42

The learned counsel, Sri.K.Ramachandran

¶43

took us through the evidence of AW1 and RW1. We do not find any specific suggestion put to AW1 or made by RW1 to the effect that it is not the paid value that has been shown in Ext.A1 document. According to us the Court below was not justified in completely discarding Ext.A1 from consideration.

¶44

L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶45

-:6:-

¶46

At the same time we are not inclined to

¶47

award the value reflected in Ext.A1 to the claimant in this case. The result of Ext.A2 proceedings has not been brought out in evidence. So long as the same is not done it will be difficult for us to find that the value seen paid in Ext.A1 is the value paid by the vendee to the vendor. We feel that the correct market value of the property should have been much more than 50% of the value reflected in Ext.A1. Having made a redressal of the evidence ourselves and keeping in mind all inputs which are relevant while determining the market value of properties compulsorily acquired we feel that it will be reasonable to fix the market value under acquisition at Rs.21,000/- per cent. It

¶48

L.A.A. NO. 841 OF 2006 & L.A.A. 1475 OF 2007

¶49

-:7:-

¶50

is accordingly refixed.

¶51

The appeal preferred by the claimant is allowed to the above extent. Appeal of the requisitioning authority is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits which are provided under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and S.28 of Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. The Registry will ensure that the balance Court fee is paid before issuing a decree copy.

¶52

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.

¶53

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE.

¶54

ul/-

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji v. the Special Deputy Collector (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji v. the Special Deputy Collector (La)

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

Joseph Chacko C.NO.3722, George Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kurup Janardhana Kurup Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Satheesan Pillai Vs v.a.Noorjahan

State of Kerala,Rep.by Spl.Tahsildar Vs K.Appukuttan Pillai

Neelakandan Nair Vs State of Kerala