Allowed

P.Nirmal Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2011LA.App./951/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CITATION: Not available in text. In this land acquisition appeal, the Kerala High Court enhanced the compensation rate from Rs.60,000 to Rs.96,000 per cent. The court relied on Ext.A1, adjusted for time passage and commercial land use differences, allowing the appeal and entitlement to statutory benefits. 60 words.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; land value fixed at Rs.96,000 per cent; claimants entitled to statutory benefits on enhanced compensation.

P.Nirmal Kumar Vs State of Kerala — 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. 951 of 2010(C)

¶6

-------------------------LAR.92/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS

¶8

¶9

P.NIRMAL KUMAR, ADVOCATE, 21/3866 A "CHAM SRI", P.O.ARTS COLLEGE, CALICUT-18.

¶10

SOBHANA T.R., W/O.P.NIRMALKUMAR, 21/3866 A "CHAM SRI", P.O.ARTS COLLEGE, CALICUT-18.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NH-1, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RBDCK LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25.

¶16

ADV. SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA,SC,ROADS & BRI FOR R-2

¶17

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN

¶18

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

LAA. No. 951 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Balakrishnan, J.

¶24

The claimants are in appeal. Their properties situated in Panniyankara Village were acquired for the purpose of constructing approach road to Meenchanda Railway Overbridge. Notification under Section 4(1) was published on 29-3-2001. For determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.22,590/- per cent. The claimants relied on Ext.A1 document which reflected a land value of Rs.1,17,000/- per cent. The court below after analyzing evidence, re-fixed the land value at Rs.60,000/- per cent. The appellants contend that a perusal of the commission report would make it clear that the acquired land is situated by the side of Kozhikode –

¶25

-2-

¶26

LAA.951/10

¶27

Beypore Road near Government Arts and Science College, Meenchanda. It was reported by the Commissioner that there are several educational institutions, industrial units, temples etc. situated very close to the acquired land. It was also reported by the Commissioner that the basis land is situated far away from the acquired land and is not similarly situated and that is not at all comparable with the acquired land. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri.Jaju Babu would submit that the commissioner's report was in fact not seriously challenged by the respondents and so the court below should have accepted Ext.A1 to fix the land value as on the date of Ext.A1. It is further pointed out that Ext.A1 is dated 23-5-2000, about ten months prior to the date of notification and as such for the passage of time the land value should have been further increased. But even the land value that is reflected in Ext.A1 was not allowed by the court below. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Ext.A1 cannot be relied upon to fix the land

¶28

-3-

¶29

LAA.951/10

¶30

value since the property therein was purchased by the Indian Oil Corporation for a commercial purpose and is situated about 1 km. away from the acquired land. The court below relying upon Ext.X-1, the report of the commissioner, found that the acquired land is situated very close to the Government Arts and Science College, Meenchanda. It is also found that it is a residential area and not a commercial area.

¶31

We find that Ext.A1 has to be relied upon to fix the land value. Considering the passage of time the value of the land shown in Ext.A1 can be taken as Rs.1,20,000/- per cent as on the date of notification under Section 4(1). But however, considering the fact that Ext.A1 property was purchased by the Indian Oil Corporation for commercial purpose, reducing 20% there from the land value can be fixed at the rate of Rs.96,000/- per cent. It is accordingly fixed. To that extent the appeal is allowed. The claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the total

¶32

LAA.951/10

¶33

-4-

¶34

enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment.

¶35

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶36

(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶37

ksv/-

P.Nirmal Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Nirmal Kumar 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

State of Kerala Vs Saraswathi Pillai

Poulose Vs State of Kerala

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

The Project Officer Vs Chembakassery Meethal

Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Arifa Beevi Vs State of Kerala