Allowed

K.K.Paulose v. the District Collector,Muvattupuzha

Kerala HC22 Mar 2012LA.App./192/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court re-fixed the market value of acquired agricultural land at Rs.10,500 per are by allowing deductions from comparable sales. It also awarded an additional Rs.35,000 for the value of rubber trees deemed inadequate, while rejecting a higher claim for improvements.

What did the court decide?

Land value re-fixed at Rs.10,500/- per are; additional Rs.35,000 granted for value of trees.

K.K.Paulose Vs the District Collector,Muvattupuzha — 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

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/2ND CHAITHRA 1934

¶6

LA.App..No. 192 of 2005 (C) --------------------------(L.A.R.104/1994 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA)

¶7

LEGAL HEIR OF THE CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/CLAIMANT::

¶8

K.K. PAULOSE, S/O. LATE SRI.PAILY KURIAKOSE, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTEHNPURA, RESIDING AT NADUVILADATHU PUTHENPURA, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, C.R. SYAMKUMAR

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2012, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO. 375/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

DST

¶15

LA.App..No. 192 of 2005 (C)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 :	COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR
	OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, PIR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 14.7.2004.
ANNEXURE A2 :	COPY OF THE WILL NO. 132 OF 2001 DATED 16.10.2001.
ANNEXURE A3 :	COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT DATED 9.8.2004.
ANNEXURE A4 :	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT IN THE PETITION TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT WITH AFFIDAVIT & PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DST

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

¶24

--------------------------------------------LAA Nos.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2012

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Pius C.Kuriakose, J

¶27

Both these appeals are filed by one and the same claimant. His land with yielding rubber trees situated within the limits of Piravom Panchayat was acquired by the Government pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 10.6.1993 for the Piravom Water Supply Scheme. In the case pertaining to LAA No.192 of 2005, apart from the land value, since there were a good number of yielding rubber trees, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of Rs.38,689/- towards value of improvements (towards value of trees). The reference court tried both the LAR cases jointly and before that court, the appellant relied on Exts.A2 and A3 documents mainly. Exts.A2 and A3 pre-

¶28

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 2

¶29

notification documents reflected land value of Rs.17,290/per Are and Rs.18,000/- per Are respectively.

¶30

Even though the distance between the property covered by Exts.A2 and A3 and the properties under acquisition was a little more than one kilometre only, the learned sub judge did not become incline to place reliance on Exts.A2 and A3 because of the reason that Exts.A2 and A3 properties were situated in the very heart of the Piravom town on Kakkadu-Ramamangalam Public Road that is very close to Piravom Valiya Palli. It was noticed that the purchaser of Exts.A2 and A3 property had special interest in purchasing those properties by giving fancy price, because the properties lying at the three sides of Ext.A2 property and southern and western sides of Ext.A3 property belonged to the purchaser-Church. Hence, the court below took the view that Exts.A2 and A3 does not reflect the correct market value of the property under acquisition. By doing guess work, the learned subordinate judge uniformly fixed the

¶31

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 3

¶32

value of the property at Rs.7200/-. The common ground raised in both these appeals is that the market value refixed by the reference court is inadequate.

¶33

We have heard the submissions of Mr.Paul Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Syam Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Mr.Paul Abraham Vakkanal drew our attention to Exts.A2 and A3 and submitted that even if it is assumed that the property covered by Exts.A2 and A3 were specially advantageous to the purchaser-Church and the purchaser had paid fancy price to those properties, then also proper deductions could have been made and market value could have been fixed relying on Exts.A2 and A3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has not been awarded compensation for the full extent of property acquired. He submitted that a suit was filed and the Commissioner appointed by the court in that suit reported that the total extent of the property belonging to the

¶34

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 4

¶35

appellant was 1 acre 7½ cents in both the cases as against 89 cents covered by the awards. In LAA No.192 of 2005, the counsel requested that in that case compensation be awarded is for the full extent of 1 acre 7 ½ cents.

¶36

The next submission of Mr.Paul was also regarding LAA No.192/2005. According to him, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court has reported that the value of improvements which stood on the property at the time of acquisition was Rs.5,17,755/-. The commissioner has reported that the value of improvements was Rs.5,17,755.60. According to the learned counsel, the above amount also should be awarded along with the market value of the land.

¶37

Sri.Syam Kumar the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the appellant can be awarded compensation only for the lands actually acquired from him as per the award passed by the Court. The Government has not taken over even an inch more than the extent shown in

¶38

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 5

¶39

the award. As regards the complaint that 18.5 cents more was taken over, the learned Government Pleader submitted that so much extent of land belonging to the appellant was never taken over. As regards the value of improvements, the reply of the Government Pleader was that the value of improvements was calculated by the Advocate Commissioner by adopting the method of capitalisation of income from the rubber trees. If that method is adopted, the appellant cannot get more value towards improvements, so submitted the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have reappraised the entire evidence on record. The first question that we are called upon to decide is the correct market value of the land to be fixed. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below was not justified in completely discarding Exts.A2 and A3. Ext.A2 has plus points in comparison with the properties under acquisition.

¶41

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 6

¶42

It is also seen that the purchaser church has special interest in purchasing Exts.A2 and A3 properties. According to us, even taking these aspects into account, Exts.A2 and A3 can be relied on and proper deductions can be made on the value reflected in Exts.A2 and A3 which on an average is Rs.17,500/-. According to us, 40% of the average value reflected in Exts.A2 and A3 can be deducted the above plus points. Then so deducted, the market value of land under acquisition was Rs.10,700/- per Are. We re-fix uniformly the land value at Rs.10,500/- per Are. We are not at all impressed by Sri.Vakkanal's argument that the appellant has been deprived of more property than what is shown in the award. If the appellant has a complaint that the Government is in possession of larger extent than what was shown in the award, the appellant’s remedy lies elsewhere. It is open to the appellant to pursue such remedy.

¶43

Coming to the question of value of improvements, we are of the view that the appellant, having opted for the

¶44

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 7

¶45

land value method as more advantageous to him, cannot now ask for the entire amount recommended by the Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner’s recommendations are on the basis of capitalisation of income from the rubber trees. The commissioner’s recommendations therefore cannot be accepted. At the same time, we feel that having considered the number and age of trees which stood on the properties under acquisition in LAA No.192 of 2005 that the sum of Rs.38,798/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards value of improvements (value of trees) is inadequate. We award to the appellant in that case Rs.35,000/- more towards value of trees.

¶46

The appeals are allowed to the above extent. The

¶47

market value of the land is uniformly re-fixed at Rs.10,500/- The appellant in LAA No.192/2005 is entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards the value of improvements.

¶48

LAA No.192 of 2005 & 375 of 2006 8

¶49

The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶50

It is open to the Government to claim the court fee payable on LAA No.192 of 2005 as charge on the property under acquisition. In other words, the Government can deduct the court fee payable by the appellant while depositing the compensation pursuant to this award.

¶51

Parties will suffer the respective costs in this appeal.

¶52

sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶53

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶54

css/ true copy

¶55

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.K.Paulose v. the District Collector,Muvattupuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Paulose v. the District Collector,Muvattupuzha

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

The Special Tahsildar Vs Rajeswari Amma

K.P.Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Kochubava Vs Anirudhan

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Christopher Cardoz

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

M.N.Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala