Remanded

Krishna Kumar.P.T. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2012LA.App./126/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a land acquisition appeal, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Reference Court for reconsideration of the market value, noting discrepancies in the valuation documents and prior orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Reference Court to pass a revised award after re-appreciation of evidence and affording an opportunity to both sides.

Krishna Kumar.P.T. Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/16TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

LA.App..No. 126 of 2012 ()

¶7

-------------------------LAR.711/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶8

APPELLANT(S):CLAIMANT:

¶9

KRISHNA KUMAR.P.T., KRISHNA VIHAR, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 023.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.

¶14

R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SHYAMKUMAR R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ

¶18

LAA No.126 of 2012

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶22

The claimant is the appellant. The property in Peroorkada village was acquired for the purpose of widening the road from Kowdiar to Vazhayila. The acquisition was pursuant to 4(1) notification published on 11/06/2007. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,36,489/- per cent. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment has refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.22,00,000/- per Are.

¶23

It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that the Reference Court went wrong in assuming that the consideration shown in Ext.A1 document takes in the values of the building also.

¶24

At the very outset, Shri C. R. Syam Kumar, learned senior Government Pleader drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in LAA No.447/2011. The learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the above appeal was an appeal preferred by the Government in another case pertaining to the same acquisition. That appeal has been allowed by way of an order of remand and the

¶25

LAA No.126 of 2012 -:2:-

¶26

issue is now before the Reference Court.

¶27

Mr. C. R. Syam Kumar submitted in this Court that the only document produced was Ext.A1 which could not have been relied on. Therefore, if this Court is inclined to pass an order of remand, the interest of the Government should be protected by incorporating proper conditions.

¶28

Shri Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us copy of Ext.A1 and submitted that the observation of the learned Sub Judge that the value is not reflected in Ext.A1 is the value of not only the land, but also of the building, is not correct. Separate values are shown for the land and the building where the land value itself as seen in Ext.A1 document is Rs.15 lakhs per cent. The learned counsel, therefore, requested that Ext.A1 be relied on and the market value of th eland will be refixed.

¶29

Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the issue need not be finally decided by us. The observation of the learned Sub Judge that Ext.A1 takes in the value of the land as well as the building, does not appear to be correct. It is seen from Ext.A1 document that separate values are shown for the building and for the land. We find that in LAA No.447/2011, this court directed the Reference Court to reconsider

¶30

LAA No.126 of 2012 -:3:-

¶31

the issue of the correct market value to be awarded for identical properties acquired for the same purpose.

¶32

Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to remit

¶33

the matter back to the Reference Court. The result of the above discussion is, therefore, as follows:

¶34

The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside.

¶35

LAR No.711/2008 is remitted back to the Reference

¶36

Court. The learned Sub Judge is directed to pass a revised award after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence if they are desirous of.

¶37

Revised award will be passed after re-appreciation of Ext.A1 already on record and any further evidence which the parties may adduce pursuant to this order. It is made clear that as we are sure that there is some latches on the part of the appellant, the one third court fee presently remitted will be forfeited.

¶38

sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶39

sd/-

¶40

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

P.A TO JUDGE

¶43

krj

Krishna Kumar.P.T. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar.P.T. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kariyal Pushpa Sudheendran Vs the Spl.Tahasildar L.a.,National Highway

T.T.Chacko Vs Bineesh Kumar

Kalesh Kumar Vs George K. Varkey

State of Kerala Vs Ezhava Samajam

State of Kerala Vs Sarojini

Ezhava Samajam Vs State of Kerala