The High Court allowed the appeal concerning the market value of land acquired for a road constructio
Enhanced market value fixed at `8,000/- per cent; statutory benefits under Section 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to be calculated on this value.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/22ND PHALGUNA 1933
LA.App..No. 461 of 2011 (A)
LAR.40/2008 of SUB COURT, MANJERI
APPELLANT(S)/CLIAMANT:
SECRETARY,
DARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION, VAZHAKKAD MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
L. A. A. No.461 of 2011
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2012
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The appellant is the Secretary of Darul Uloom Association who were the claimants before the Land Acquisition Reference Case. Their property in Areacode village was acquired for the construction of approach road to the newly constructed Kadungalloor bridge. The properties were wetlands. The Land Acquisition Officer relying on Ext.R3 basis document fixed the land value at the rate of ` 5089/- per cent. In fact the Land Acquisition Officer awarded 20% increase on the value reflected in the basis document on the reason that the land under acquisition was much more superior to the land covered by Ext.R3 basis document. The Reference Court however took the view that the additions of 20% given by the Land Acquisition Officer
L. A. A. No.461 of 2011 -2-
was not sufficient to cover the marked superiority of the land under acquisition over Ext.R3 property. Therefore, the Reference Court would give 50% increase and would re-fix the land value at ` 7,240/- per cent.
L. A. A. No.461 of 2011 -3-
23% increase be given on the basis that the land value has increased in the locality at the rate of ` 15% per year. Sri.Thomas Antony took us to the Commission Report which shows that on account of the emergence of the approach road the un-acquired property of the appellant is now at a level of about 10 metres lower than the level of the road. This according to the learned counsel has affected the value of the un-acquired property injuriously and for this injurious affection compensation should be awarded.
L. A. A. No.461 of 2011 -4-
this appeal the appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection of the un-acquired property of the appellant on account of the acquisition cannot be entertained. We do not find claim in that regard filed for the purpose. At the same time, we cannot accept the argument of Sri.C.R.Syamkumar that 50% additions given by the Reference Court takes into account the passage of one year and eight months after the execution of Ext.R3 till the date of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. We are convinced that neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor the Reference Court took into account the passage of time. We are of the view that for passage of time reasonable additions has to be given. We are inclined to enhance the value at 760/- per cent taking into account the passage of time. Thus the market value of the land under acquisition will stand re-fixed at 8,000/- per cent. Enhanced compensation will be calculated on that basis. On the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of the Reference Court's judgment and this judgment
L. A. A. No.461 of 2011 -5-
the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant will be entitled for proportionate costs also in the special circumstances which attend on this case. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted.
Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE
Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
kns/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court correctly accounted for the passage of time in fixing the market value of the acquired land.
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for injurious affection of un-acquired property.
Whether the enhanced market value should be re-fixed by this Court considering the delay in notification.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SECRETARY, DARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION, VAZHAKKAD MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, MANJERI
PIUS C KURIAKOSE
A.V RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
