Dismissed

Thresiamma v. Kochi International Aiport Society

Kerala HC13 Mar 2012LA.App./404/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the land classification and compensation. The court held that the property was correctly classified as reclaimed wet land ('myal nilam') and rejected the reliance on a commissioner's report obtained in a separate civil suit where the requisitioning authority was not a party. Consequently, the awarded compensatio

What did the court decide?

The appeal failed and was dismissed without any order as to cost.

Thresiamma Vs Kochi International Aiport Society — 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 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/23RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

LA.App..No. 404 of 2005 ( )

¶7

LAR.292/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶8

APPELLANT / APPELLANT :

¶9

THRESSIAMMA, W/O.DEVASIKUTTY, PADAYATTIL, THIRUVUMKARA, KANJOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.G.MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY,

¶13

(REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR), ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶16

ERNAKULAM.

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAM KUMAR

¶18

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

LAA. No. 404 of 2005

¶22

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2012

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶25

The claimant is the appellant. Her property in Vadakkumbhagom Village of Aluva Taluk was included in the category of interior “myal nilam” (reclaimed wet land) (category-17) and the L.A. Officer awarded `2223/- per Are. The acquisition was for the purpose of the respondent Kochi International Airport Society. The Reference Court under the impugned award has re-fixed the land value giving enhancement of 45% over the rate awarded by the L.A.O. Thus the market value was re-fixed at Rs.3223/- per Are. The main contention raised by the appellant before the Reference Court was that his property was not “myal nilam” but it was pucca dry land. For substantiating this contention the appellant relied on Ext.A4 commissioner's report. A4 was not the report of a commission taken out in

¶26

LAA. 404/05

¶27

-2-

¶28

the LAR case. It was a report submitted by a

¶29

commissioner appointed by a civil court in OS. No. 26 of 1995 instituted by the appellant obviously for the purpose of getting a commissioner's report alone. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become impressed by Ext.A4. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in A4 it is reported that the property under acquisition was pucca dry land, having appreciated A4 by ourselves we are unable to accept the above argument. What is reported in A4 is only that upon the property stood various types of trees including coconut trees, accacia trees nutmeg trees, pooparathi trees, vatta trees and a lemon tree. Significantly, the age of all these trees at the time of inspection which is on 14-1-1995 is between 3 years and 4 years. In other words, even going by A4, these trees were aged only 2 to 3 years at the time when the notification under Section 4(1) was promulgated. A4 is obtained in a suit to which the

¶30

LAA. 404/05

¶31

-3-

¶32

respondent requisitioning authority is not party. We don't think that relying on A4 it can be concluded that the property under acquisition was pucca dry land. We cannot blame the learned Subordinate Judge in having come to the conclusion notwithstanding A4 that the property was rightly classified as “myal nilam” i.e., reclaimed wet land. The market value of Rs.3223/- per Are fixed by the Reference Court for reclaimed wet land (category-17) has been approved by this Court in other cases. In view of such approval we don't find way to increase the compensation awarded to the appellant.

¶33

The appeal fails and will stand dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.

¶34

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶35

(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)

¶36

ksv/-

Thresiamma v. Kochi International Aiport Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thresiamma v. Kochi International Aiport Society

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

Parukuttyamma Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs Moorthi.P.

Shereef Vs P.H.Ali

Justin Vs Jacob Shaji

Vijayan Vs Babu

Beeran, S/O.Bava Vs N.R.Prabhakaran & Another