Partly allowed

Smt.Pushpavally Purushothaman v. the Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC17 Dec 2012LA.App./53/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these land acquisition appeals regarding industrial plots in Ayyanthole village, the court held that the fixed land value was too low. Aligning with a previous judgment for similar land in the same locality, the court re-fixed the compensation rate at 8,050 per cent and partly allowed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

The land value is re-fixed at `8,050/- per cent. Appellants are entitled to statutory benefits and proportionate costs.

Smt.Pushpavally Purushothaman Vs the Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/26TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶6

LA.App..No. 53 of 2007 (C)

¶7

LAR.71/2003 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶9

SMT. PUSHPAVALLY PURUSHOTHAMAN, VANPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PADIYUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.T.R.RAJESH SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS .:

¶12

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.GENERAL, THRISSUR.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2012, ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.681 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶18

L.A.A.NOS.53/2007,681/2006,833/2006,

¶19

882/2006, 809/2007,725/2006,715/2006,

¶20

680/2006 AND 810/2006.

¶21

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2012

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶24

All these Land Acquisition Appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Court in respect of the same acquisition and for the same purpose. The acquisition was for establishing industrial development plots under the auspices of District Industries Centre. The details regarding the Land Acquisition Appeals are shown below:

¶25

*SL.NO.*	*LAA.NO.*	*LAR.NO.*	*Date of* *Notification*	*Extent* *in Ares*	*Village*	*Land* *Value* *per cent* *fixed by* *the* *LAO*	*Land* *Value per* *cent fixed* *by the* *Reference* *Court*
1	53/2007	71/2003	29.7.2000	12.14	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
2	681/2006	72/2003	29.7.2000	10.12	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
3	833/2006	73/2003	29.7.2000	13.3	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
4	882/2006	74/2003	29.7.2000	61.31	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
5	809/2007	75/2003	29.7.2000	21.35	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
6	725/2006	66/2003	29.7.2000	23.415	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
7	715/2006	36/2004	04/07/00	33.18	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
8	680/2006	35/2004	04/07/00	20.33	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-
9	810/2006	31/2004	29.7.2000	23.425	Ayyanthole	1,500/-	2,400/-

¶26

L.A.A.NO.53 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES

¶27

:: 2 ::

¶28

The appellants/claimants are aggrieved by the fixation of land value made by the Land Acquisition Court. It is contended that the land value fixed is too low, taking into account the potentiality of the acquired lands. The acquired lands are situated in Puzhakkal Padasekharam which consists of large extent of paddy lands. Puzhakkal Padasekharam is situated on the side of ThrissurKunnamkulam State Highway.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in L.A.A.Nos.515 of 2006 and connected cases, a Division Bench of this Court fixed the land value at 8,050/- per cent of land in respect of the acquisition for the same purpose. It is submitted that in those connected cases, notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 4.10.1999 and the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the land value at 1,380/- per cent, which was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Court to `2,280/- per cent. The lands involved in L.A.A.No.515 of 2006 and connected cases are also situated at Puzhakkal Padasekharam in the same village. In the light of the judgment dated 14.3.2011 in L.A.A.No.515 of 2006 and connected cases, we

¶30

L.A.A.NO.53 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES

¶31

:: 3 ::

¶32

are inclined to fix the land value in these appeals also at `8,050/- per cent.

¶33

Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Appeals are partly allowed and the land value is re-fixed at `8,050/- per cent. The appellants would be entitled to all the statutory benefits. The appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs as well.

¶34

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶35

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶36

ahz/

¶37

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶38

-----------------------------------------------------L.A.A. NOS.53/2007,681/2006, 833/2006, 882/2006, 809/2007, 725/2006,715/2006, 680/2006 AND 810/2006.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

17^th December, 2012

Smt.Pushpavally Purushothaman v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Pushpavally Purushothaman v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu Vs Augustine

M/S.Cannanore Drug House Vs Cheriya Melat Abdul Azeez

M/S.Cannanore Drug Lines Vs Cheriya Melat Abdul Azeez

Risa Salim Vs State of Kerala

Smt.Valsala Vs the Special Tahsildar

State of Kerala, Represented by District Collector, Tvm Vs Krishnan Assari