Allowed

Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2012LA.App./482/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the condonation of a 1448-day delay for impleading the original appellant's legal heirs, fixing their costs but waiving interest on enhanced compensation. The original land acquisition value was increased from Rs.1,60,000 to Rs.2,11,200 per Are based on comparative judgments.

What did the court decide?

The delay was condoned; legal heirs impleaded; land value fixed at Rs.2,11,200/- per Are.

Ibrahim 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

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

LA.App..No. 482 of 2006 ( )

¶8

LAR.3/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶10

IBRAHIM, S/O. OUKER, MALIYAM VEEDU, EDAPPALLY.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶14

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.(B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR.

¶15

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAM KUMAR

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

svs

¶18

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

¶19

LAA No.482 of 2006

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2012

¶21

ORDER/ JUDGMENT

¶22

Pius C.Kuriakose, J

¶23

I.A.Nos.588/2012, 589/2012 & C.M.Appln.No.287/2012

¶24

I.A.588 of 2012 seeks impleadment of the legal heirs of

¶25

the deceased appellant.

¶26

I.A.No.589 of 2012 seeks to set aside the abatement

¶27

which was set in on account of the non-impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased.

¶28

C.M.Appln.No.287/2012 seeks condonation of

¶29

inordinate delay of 1448 days caused in the matter of having the impleadment of application.

¶30

All these applications are very stiffly opposed by the Government. It is submitted by Sri.C.R.Syam Kumar that if these applications are allowed, serious prejudice would be

¶31

LAA No.482 of 2006 2

¶32

caused to the Government as heavy stakes are involved in this appeal.

¶33

Notwithstanding the stiffness of the opposition, we feel that the delay should be condoned imposing stringent conditions. Hence, we allow all these applications.

¶34

The abatement is set aside. The delay in filing the impleadment application is condoned and the petitioners in IA.Nos.588 of 2012 are impleaded as additional appellants 1 to 5 in the appeal subject to the following conditions:

¶35

iii)The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost to the Government through the office of the Advocate General within a period of three weeks from today and produce receipt.

¶36

iv)The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to

¶37

the Kerala Advocate’s Welfare Fund Trust within the same time limit and produce receipt.

¶38

LAA No.482 of 2006 3

¶39

v) In case is the appeal is allowed, the enhanced

¶40

compensation which may be awarded in favour of the additional appellants will not carry any interest during the period of 1448 days condoned by this order.

¶41

LAA No.482 of 2006

¶42

It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the cost amount ordered as above will be paid without fail. We accept the above submission and take up the appeal for disposal.

¶43

The original claimant/appellant is no more and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional appellants. The property was in Edappally North Village. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 14.3.2002. The acquisition was for the purpose of upgradation of the National Highway-17. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-i and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,32,000/- per Are.

¶44

LAA No.482 of 2006 4

¶45

Even though the claimant produced several documents, the learned subordinate judge did not place any reliance on those documents. Ultimately, the learned subordinate judge did guess work and re-fixed the land value at Rs.1,60,000/- per Are. Thus, giving an increase of roughly 21% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶46

We notice various judgments of this Court pertaining to acquisition of identical lands for the same purpose. We find that this Court has granted considerable enhancement depending upon the category of land acquired in other cases. We are of the view that the market value of the land under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2,11,200/per Are. The appeal is allowed and the market value of the land under acquisition is fixed at Rs.2,11,200/-. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits subject to the conditions imposed by us in the order in C.M.Application No.287/2012.

¶47

LAA No.482 of 2006 5

¶48

The decree copy will be issued only after ensuring that the full court fee is paid and also that the conditions imposed by us in the order in CMA No.287 of 2012 are complied with.

¶49

Parties will suffer their respective costs.

¶50

sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶51

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶52

css/ true copy

¶53

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim 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

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

K.K.Paulose Vs the District Collector,Muvattupuzha

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Christopher Cardoz

M.N.Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala