Remanded

Kunju Moideen v. Muhammed Vadakkedathu

Kerala HC3 Jan 2011LA.App./997/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court judgment and remanded the land acquisition appeal. It directed the Sub Court to re-fix the market value of the land, exercising lien rights based on a precedent, while granting the appellant liberty to adduce further pre-notification evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to Sub Court to re-fix market value with liberty to adduce pre-notification evidence.

Kunju Moideen Vs Muhammed Vadakkedathu — 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 MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No.997 of 2007(D) ------------------------------LAR.115/2005 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ....................

¶3

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT NO. 5: -------------------------------------

¶4

KUNJU MOIDEEN, S/O.KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 TO 10 & RESPONDENTS:

¶7

¶8

MUHAMMED VADAKKADATHU, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶9

ALIYARU PATHU, KATTAKATHU, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶10

SMT.KHADEEJA LABBA, W/O.BAVA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

JABBAR, S/O.KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶12

SUHARA, D/O.KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶13

NASEERA , D/O.KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶14

MAHABOOB, S/O.KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶15

LAA.997/07

¶16

-2-

¶17

BEEVI, D/O. KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶18

SHYLA, D/O. KHADEEJA LABBA, MUNDATTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶19

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.)

¶21

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

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

¶23

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007

¶24

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2011

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶27

The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was for the construction of Muvattupuzha-Chalikkadavu bridge over the Muvattupuzha river. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 17/01/2000. The extent involved is just one cent. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.79,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the parties were concerned with the correct value payable for the land only. The claimant relied on Ext.A4, a post notification document. Ext.A4 was not relied on by the learned Sub Court inter alia on the reason that the same was not properly proved. The learned Subordinate Judge ultimately would apply the rule of thumb and enhance the

¶28

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -2-

¶29

land value by Rs.24,000/- per Are and would thus, re-fix the

¶30

land value at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are.

¶31

In this appeal, the claimant has raised various

¶32

grounds assailing the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. We have heard the submissions of Sr.N.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader for the Government. Sri.Anil Kumar, drew our attention to Ext.A4 and submitted that the court below was not justified in rejecting Ext.A4. Learned counsel requested that the case be remanded to the Reference Court so as to afford opportunity to the appellant for properly proving Ext.A4. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader would take strong exception to an opportunity being given to the claimant for proving Ext.A4. She submitted that Ext.A4 pertains to a tiny bit of land with a building. No

¶33

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -3-

¶34

separate value is shown in Ext.A4 for the land and building. Ext.A4 is of no value in determining the correct market value of the land in question. She also argued that resort to post notification documents can be had only when prenotification documents are not available. That is not the situation in this case. We find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned Senior Government Pleader would fairly bring to our notice the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.498/06 to which one among us [PCK(J)] is party. Under that judgment, the value of similar lands acquired for the same purpose pursuant to same notification has been re-fixed at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are. Senior Government Pleader submitted that the appeal can be allowed to the extent of re-fixing the land value at Rs.1,30,000/- per Are. Sri.Anilkumar would however, make a very fervent appeal

¶35

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -4-

¶36

for a remand order. According to him, the claimant may be able to produce other prenotification documents reflecting higher value for identical lands. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to pass an order of remand.

¶37

In the result, the judgment under appeal is set aside. L.A.R.115/05 is remanded to the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. That court is directed to take a fresh decision in the LAR and re-fix the market value of the land involved in the case. While making such re-fixation due regard shall be had to the judgment of this Court in LAA.498/06. The claimant is at liberty to adduce further evidence including pre-notification documents pertaining to comparable lands and if such further evidence is adduced, the court can rely on such further evidence also for fixing the correct market value of the land. The parties will enter appearance before

¶38

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007 -5-

¶39

the court below on 07/02/11. Refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo to Sri.N.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Before copy of the judgment is issued, Registry will ensure that the full court fee is remitted by the appellant.

¶40

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶41

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶42

kns/-

¶43

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007

¶44

-6-

¶45

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.

¶46

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007

¶47

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2010

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶50

The appeal is remaining in the defect list on the reason that service of notice is not completed on R9. But we find that R3 is the mother of R9 and R4 to R8 are the siblings of R9. In fact, all these respondents were toeing the same line engaging the same counsel before the Sub Court. Under the above circumstances, we exonerate the appellant from the obligation of taking out notice afresh to R9. The appeal need not be treated as defective. Post the appeal after two weeks in the hearing list.

¶51

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶52

-7-

¶53

L. A. A. No.997 of 2007

¶54

C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶55

kns/-

Kunju Moideen v. Muhammed Vadakkedathu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunju Moideen v. Muhammed Vadakkedathu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mini Varghese Vs M.G.Kurian (Died)

Soly John Vs a.J.John

C.v.Siraj Vs Kolathayi Puthiyapurayil Ayisha

Chittilappilly Charities Vs the District Collector

N.P.Asma Vs Special Tahsildar

Rani Romal Vs State of Kerala