Allowed

Mohammed Kannu Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2011LA.App./92/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against a reference court award that re-fixed land acquisition value at Rs. 950 per Are. The Court, finding the previous adjustments inadequate, re-fixed the market value at Rs. 1,025 per Are and directed execution of statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Re-fixed market value of acquired plantation land at Rs. 1,025 per Are; awarded statutory benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28.

Mohammed Kannu Mohammed Ibrahim 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 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933

¶3

LA.App..No. 92 of 2006 (C) -----------------------------LAR.5/1981 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ....................

¶4

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS 10 TO 13 AND 52:

¶5

¶6

MOHAMMED KANNU MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, THOPPUVILAKATHU PUTHEN BUNGLOW, ARIKKARA VEETTU MURI, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE.

¶7

MOHAMMED KANNU MOHAMMED KASSIM, THOPPUVILAKATHU PUTHEN BUNGLOW, ARIKKARA VEETTU MURI, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE.

¶8

MOHAMMED KANNU ABDUL RAHIM, THOPPUVILAKATHU PUTHEN BUNGLOW, ARIKKARA VEETTU MURI, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE.

¶9

MOHAMMED PATHUMMAL RAFIYATHU BEEVI, THOPPUVILAKATHU PUTHEN BUNGLOW, ARIKKARA VEETTU MURI, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE.

¶10

MOHAMMED KANNU ABDUL RASHEED, THOPPUVILAKATHU PUTHEN BUNGLOW, ARIKKARA VEETTU MURI, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

LA.App..No. 92 of 2006 © -2-

¶16

THE KERALA FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R2

¶18

SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R2

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.TJOSEPHINA

¶20

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

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

¶22

L. A. A. No.92 of 2006

¶23

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2011

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶26

Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the

¶27

claimants is the award of the Reference Court re-fixing the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.950/- per Are. The property in question was a plantation and was acquired for the purpose of Kerala Film Development Corporation pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 02/03/76. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.247/- per Are. The Reference Court in the first instance re-fixed the land value at Rs.800/- per Are in respect of larger holdings while in respect of small holdings the value was re-fixed at Rs.1,500/- per Are. The Government as well as the claimants preferred appeal to

¶28

L. A. A. No.92 of 2006 -2-

¶29

this Court. Considering those appeals, this Court remanded the issue to the Reference Court. The impugned judgment has been passed pursuant to the above remand. Under the impugned judgment, the land value has been re-fixed at Rs.950/- per Are. According to the appellants, the value redetermined is inadequate. The appellants point out that the award of the court re-fixing value of Rs.1,500/- per Are for small holdings has become final.

¶30

We have heard submissions of Sri.Ziyad Rahman, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Josephina, the learned Government Pleader. Sri.Ziyad would draw our attention to Exts.A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7. According to him, the court below has discarded Exts.A1 to A6 and has only relied on Ext.A7. He argued that Exts.A1 to A6 should also be relied on and market value should be re-fixed accordingly. Even though Sri.Ziyad was very persuasive we

¶31

L. A. A. No.92 of 2006

¶32

-3-

¶33

do not find any infirmity about the judgment of the court below discarding Exts.A1 to A6 from consideration. According to us Ext.A7, is the only item which could have been relied on. Ext.A7 pertains to an acquisition of about 4.10 cents of land in the same village on the basis of Section 4(1) notification published on 13/11/70. The court below noticed that Ext.A7 was in respect of property abutting main road. The court below deducted 50% from the value reflected in Ext.A7 towards the largeness of the extent. Thereafter, for the road frontage enjoyed by Ext.A7 property the court below deducted 25%. Thereafter, what the court below did was to add 10% for the passage of five years time till date of Section 4(1) notification. This was how value arrived at to Rs.950/- for these properties. The argument of Sri.Ziyad was that the deductions made by the court below are too high and that the additions made by the

¶34

L. A. A. No.92 of 2006

¶35

-4-

¶36

court below are insufficient.

¶37

Though all the submissions of Sri.Ziyad were

¶38

opposed by Smt.Josephina, we find some merit in the submission of Sri.Ziyad. According to us, the learned Subordinate Judge was very miserly in giving additions. We are sure that during the period of five years the value has certainly increased by more than 10%. We also feel that the deductions made for the size are also high. According to us on a better assessment based on the same evidence and keeping in mind the relevant inputs, the market value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs.1025/- per Are. Accordingly, allowing this appeal, we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.1025/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The amount due under Section 23(1A)

¶39

L. A. A. No.92 of 2006

¶40

-5-

¶41

will not be awarded as the award of the officer is prior to 30/04/82. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, however, without any order as to costs.

¶42

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶43

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶44

kns/-

Mohammed Kannu Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Kannu Mohammed Ibrahim 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

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Norbert and Others

State of Kerala Vs Indira Bhai and Another

State of Kerala Vs P.a.Pappachan

Smt.Krishnaveni and Others Vs the Special Tahsildar (La), Railways

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Vs the Special Thasildar (La) Nh Division