Allowed

Kadassery Sekharan v. the Special Tahsildar (L.a),Kozhikode

Kerala HC1 Mar 2012LA.App./373/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Land Acquisition Appeal, the High Court of Kerala examined the classification of wetland/gardenland. The Court rejected the Wetland classification and refixed compensation at Rs.25,000 per cent (inferior to garden, superior to wet), granting Rs.3,000 for the compound wall.

What did the court decide?

Controversial land value refixed at Rs.25,000 per cent; Rs.3,000 awarded for compound wall; statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), 28 granted.

Kadassery Sekharan Vs the Special Tahsildar (L.a),Kozhikode — 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

¶5

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

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶7

LA.App..No. 373 of 2008 ( ) --------------------------LAR.358/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶9

KADASSERY SEKHARAN, PANCHAMA SCHOOL ROAD NEAR MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN

¶11

SRI.N.K.KARNIS

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) KOZHIKODE.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ===================== L.A.A. NO. 373 OF 2008

¶18

===================== Dated this the 1^st day of March 2012

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

¶21

The claimant is the appellant. His property in Nellikkode Village was acquired for the purpose of development of Poottammal – Mannanthalathazham road pursuant to Section 4 (1)notification published on 24/12/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the property as wet land and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5194/- per cent. The Reference Court in the first instance relying on Ext.C1 commissioner's report refixed the land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent. The appellant, being aggrieved, came to this Court and preferred an appeal. The Government also preferred appeal. This court by common judgment in L.A.A.No.1154/2000 and 1188/2000 set aside the award of the Reference Court and remanded the L.A.R. permitting both sides to adduce evidence regarding the market value, regrading the value of improvements and also regarding the extent of the property. After remand, the appellant got

¶22

LAA 373/2008

¶23

-2-

¶24

himself examined again but did not produce Ext.A3 and A4 documents. These documents were produced mainly for substantiating his contention that the actual extent acquired from his possession was 2.93 and not 2.67, the extent mentioned in the award. The learned Subordinate Judge however under the impugned award refixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent only treating the property under acquisition to be wet land.

¶25

In this appeal the appellant claims land value at Rs.16000/- and claims compensation for the entire extent of 2.93 Ares and also claims compensation for the structure (compound wall which existed on the property at the time of acquisition).

¶26

We have heard the submissions of Mr.

¶27

V.K.Balachandran, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader Shri C.R.Syam Kumar. Mr. Blalchandran drew our attention to Ext.C1 commissioner's report and submitted that to the above report, the Government did not file any objections at all. It was pointed out that the Commissioner has reported that the property was

¶28

LAA 373/2008

¶29

-3-

¶30

garden land lying contiguously with the neighbouring property which were also acquired and treated as garden land by the Land Acquisition Officer . He referred to Exts.A3 and A4 submitted that the actual extent acquired was 2.93 Ares and that the appellant is left with even 1 sq.links of the land in that area. Now after the acquisition, according to him, there is every justification for refixing the land value at Rs.16,000/- as garden land. Per Contra, Mr. C.R.Syam Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1200/2008 decided by a Division Bench of this Court to which one among us ( Pius C.Kuriakose, J.) is also a party. It is pointed out that this Court on the basis of the judgment, has refixed the value of garden land at Rs.30,000/per cent and that the value of wet land was refixed at Rs.15,000/per cent. In the instant case RW1 has given convincing evidence to the effect that the property was wet land. For the property which is wet land, the appellant cannot aspire for any further compensation.

¶31

LAA 373/2008

¶32

-4-

¶33

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the commissioner's report and remand order passed by this Court.

¶34

We notice that to the Commissioner's report which is the report in the L.A.R.case itself, no objections were filed by the Government. At the same time, we are not able to accept the report which is to the effect that the land under acquisition was pucca dry land.

¶35

However, We feel that the commissioner's report can be accepted to a certain extent and it can be found that the land in question was at least reclaimed land, with a compound wall. For the compound wall as per the claim statement filed before the Awarding Officer, the cost of construction was Rs.5,000/-, but the Commissioner recommended Rs.8000/- as proper value of the compound wall. We feel that on a correct assessment, the value of the land under acquisition, which is inferior to garden land, but superior to wet land is at Rs.25,000/- per cent. We refix land value at Rs.25,000/- per cent. So also we feel that

¶36

LAA 373/2008

¶37

-5-

¶38

some compensation should be awarded for a compound wall extending to 4 metres which actual extent on the road side boundary of the property in question. Towards that compound wall, nothing was awarded and we award to the appellant Rs.3,000/- as additional value of the compound wall.

¶39

The appeal is allowed. To the enhanced compensation which is awarded to the appellant under this judgment, the appellant will be eligible for all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant will be eligible also for proportionate cost. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee is paid.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶44

ks. True copy

¶45

LAA 373/2008 -6-

Kadassery Sekharan v. the Special Tahsildar (L.a),Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadassery Sekharan v. the Special Tahsildar (L.a),Kozhikode

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 a.Vareed

Subramanian Vs P.Mohandas

M.S.Gopalakrishnan Vs Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Ktm

Varghese Koshy,Thavalathil House,Pta. Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector

Kiran B.Thaliyeth Vs Anilkumar Gupta

Yarinchire Retnakaran Vs the District Collector , Kannur