Disposed

Parangan Kunhama v. the District Collector, Kannur and Anr.

Kerala HC3 Feb 2011LA.App./94/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court issued a clarification regarding the calculation of statutory benefits when compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is redetermined. The Court held that benefits must be computed on the redetermined value, deducting amounts already paid on the original compensation, and remitted the matter to the Reference Court.

What did the court decide?

Clarification issued directing calculation of statutory benefits on redetermined value and remitting matter for correction of decree.

Parangan Kunhama Vs the District Collector, Kannur and Anr. — 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 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932

¶6

LA.App..No. 94 of 2011()

¶7

-----------------------LAR.71/2008 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR ....................

¶8

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT:

¶9

¶10

PARANGAN KUNHAMMA, W/O.LATE CHUNNAMBI KORAN, PARANGAN HOUSE, P.O.KARIVELLUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.AUGUSTINE SRI.ANIL.D.KAITHAKKAL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶13

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶15

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), EZHIMALA, NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR.

¶16

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

¶19

L.A.A..No. 94 OF 2011

¶20

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶23

The grievance voiced by the petitioner, who was claimant in a reference under Section 28A before the Subordinate Judges Court, Payyannur, is that the court below has not awarded to her the statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the L.A.Act on the amount actually due to her as enhanced compensation over and above the original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by virtue of redetermination under Section 28A.

¶24

On going through the decreetal portion of the impugned judgment, we feel that there is room for some confusion as to whether the appellant has been paid the statutory benefits legally due to her. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to issue the following clarifications;

¶25

When the compensation payable to a

¶26

claimant is redetermined under Section 28A and thereafter under Section 28A(3), such redetermined

¶27

L.A.A.No.94/2011

¶28

¶29

compensation actually substitutes the original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under such a situation, what is to be done is to calculate the statutory benefits due to the party under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 with reference to the redetermined market value and then deduct the total amount inclusive of the statutory benefits already paid on the original compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer from the total of the redetermined value and statutory benefits thereon.

¶30

We permit the petitioner to move the Reference Court for appropriate correction of the judgment and decree on the basis of the clarification issued as above if necessary.

¶31

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶33

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶34

dpk

Parangan Kunhama v. the District Collector, Kannur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parangan Kunhama v. the District Collector, Kannur and Anr.

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

A.K.Sudha Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs O.T.Abilash

State of Kerala Vs S.Rajeswary

Ulahannan Iype Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Vivekanandan Vs State of Kerala

Pankajakshy Amma,W/O.Sivaraman Nair Vs State of Kerala