Allowed

The Project Officer v. Chembakassery Meethal

Kerala HC8 Mar 2011LA.App./943/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals regarding land acquisition of garden and wet lands, the Court held that while the enhancement for garden lands was correct, the enhancement for wet lands was disproportionate. The Court re-fixed the market value for wet lands at Rs. 1500/- per cent and allowed the appeals accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Relief of all three appeals allowed to the extent of re-fixing market value of wet lands at Rs. 1500/- per cent.

The Project Officer Vs Chembakassery Meethal — 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

TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 943 of 2003()

¶6

------------------------LAR.15/2001 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

THE PROJECT OFFICER (OECF) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. M.DINESH SC, KWA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

1,. CHEMBAKASSERY MEETHEL UMMAYYA UMMA, PUTHOORVATTOM, BALUSSER, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R2

¶16

SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1

¶17

SMT.S.LAKSHMY FOR R1

¶18

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, ALANG WITH LAA NO. 1043 OF 2003 LAA NO. 1042 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

LAA. Nos. 943, 1042 & 1043 of 2003

¶21

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶24

All these appeals have been preferred by the requisitioning authority, the Kerala Water Authority. The acquisition was of garden lands and wet lands in Balussery Village, pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5- 8-1998. For the garden lands, the L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6515/- per cent. For the wet lands, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.659/- per cent. Under the impugned judgment, the reference court awarded land value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent for garden lands and Rs.3580/- for wet lands. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the finding by the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the value of garden lands is correct. The enhancement granted in the

¶25

LAA.943/03 etc.

¶26

-2-

¶27

case of garden lands is only about 52% over what was awarded. But it is clear to us that the enhancement granted in respect of wet lands is disproportionately high. According to us, the market value of the wet lands should not have been more than Rs.1500/- per cent. Accordingly, we re-fixe the market value of the wet lands under acquisition at Rs.1500/- per cent. All these appeals will stand allowed to the above extent only. The claimants respondents will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment.

¶28

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶29

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶30

ksv/-

¶31

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

¶32

LAA. Nos. 943, 1042 & 1043 of 2003

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

9th March, 2011

The Project Officer v. Chembakassery Meethal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Project Officer v. Chembakassery Meethal

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

State of Kerala Vs Saraswathi Pillai

Poulose Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and Another

Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

P.Nirmal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Arifa Beevi Vs State of Kerala