Partly allowed

Ulahannan Iype v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2011LA.App./842/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal partially. The court upheld the main award but increased compensation for improvements by Rs. 5,000 per acre and adjusted the rate for a road portion to Rs. 7,100 per acre, citing statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded: Rs. 5,000 per acre for improvements and Rs. 7,100 per acre for the road portion. Statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 awarded.

Ulahannan Iype Vs State of Kerala — 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 THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932

¶3

LA.App..No. 842 of 2003() ------------------------LAR.32/1998 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------

¶5

ULAHANNAN IYPE, S/O. ULAHANNAN, VALLIANNL HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR, ARAKUZHA, MARADY VILLAGE. MUVATTUPUZHA. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU

¶7

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI – 30.

¶10

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1

¶11

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

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

¶13

L.A.A.No. 842 OF 2003

¶14

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶17

The claimant is in appeal. His land in Maradi Village was acquired for the construction of Maradi Minor canal Distributory. The land was included in Group A (the property enjoying PWD road frontage). The Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the reliance was placed mostly on Ext.A1 common judgment of the same Sub Court in L.A.R. Nos.6/92 series. Ext.A1 was in respect of acquisition pursuant to notification published on 3/1/1989. A large number of cases are involved in Ext.A1 and L.A.R. No.79/1992 is one among them. The property in L.A.R. No.79/1992 had the direct frontage of M.C.Road. The petitioner's property did not have direct frontage of M.C.Road, but had frontage of PWD road. The distance between M.C.Road and the petitioner's property is 150 meters as per the mahazar to which the appellant is signatory.

¶18

L.A.A.No.842/2003 2

¶19

Even assuming that the petitioner's property was comparable to the property covered by Ext.A1, the maximum that the petitioner can aspire for is the value determined under Ext.A1 for properties in L.A.R. No.79/1992 (Rs.6768/- per Are) with addition for passage of seven years time. The Marady is a rural area and if the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008 SAR ( Civil) 894) are followed, the appellant will become entitle only for Rs.10,600/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment, he has been awarded Rs.14,200/- per Are. According to us, the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance about the land value awarded.

¶20

The further grievance raised by the appellant is that the court below did not award any compensation for injurious affection. According to the appellant, 5.5. cents of his land not acquired was separated from the remainder portion by virtue of acquisition. The argument is that the above portion has become reduced to an irregular, shapeless and worthless bit. On going through the evidence, we find that even though commissioner's report was obtained, the report is silent as to the shape of the

¶21

L.A.A.No.842/2003 3

¶22

above mentioned 5.5. cents. In the absence of any material evidence, it is difficult to award any compensation for injurious affection, particularly as the appellant did not have any claim for compensation for injurious affection before the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶23

Another claim raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is the claim for additional compensation for valuation of the improvements. Here again we find that not even in the application for Reference under Section 18, the appellant did not have any claim for further amount towards value of improvements. Even then we feel , having scanned the mahazar and the evidence adduced by the appellant, there is justification for awarding a further amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant towards compensation for further value for improvements. Accordingly, we award the above amount towards further value for improvements.

¶24

0.30 cents Ares of land under acquisition was awarded only nominal value of Rs.100/- per Are. The reason of the Land Acquisition Officer is that the above portion was lying as a road. But, then according to the learned senior Government Pleader

¶25

L.A.A.No.842/2003

¶26

¶27

Smt.T.T.Josephina, the appellant did not produce any basic tax receipt or other documents which will show that the appellant was having exclusive possession over the above portion of 0.30 cents. The public must have been using the above portion as a road. Even then, the fact that the appellant is having title over the property is conceded by the Government. We feel that for the above portion, the appellant should have been awarded at least 50% of the land value determined under the impugned judgment. For the above portion 0.30 Ares, the appellant is awarded land value at Rs.7,100/- per Are.

¶28

The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties will suffer their respective costs.

¶29

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶30

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

dpk

L.A.A.No.842/2003

In the judgment dated 03/02/2011 in L.A.A. No.842/2003, the word"cents" occurring in line 1 of paragraph 4 is deleted and the same word occurring in line 8 of paragraph 4 is deleted and substituted by the word "Ares" vide order dated 03/10/2011 in L.A.A. 842/2003.

¶35

Sd/-. Registrar (Judicial)

¶36

L.A.A.No.842/2003

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

L.A.A.No. 842 OF 2003

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41