Allowed

Smt.Valsala v. the Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC17 Dec 2012LA.App./680/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment refixes the market value of land acquired for industrial development at Rs. 7500 per Are, higher than the reference court order, allowing the appeals to this extent and granting statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Market value refixed at Rs. 7500 per Are; statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act allowed.

Smt.Valsala 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

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

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

¶7

LA.App..No. 680 of 2006 (D)

¶8

LAR.35/2004 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶9

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶10

SMT.VALSALA, D/O.THAYYIL KUNJAYYAPPAN, KANIMANGALAM, TRICHUR. (DIED)

¶11

SMT.VASUMATHY, D/O.THAYYIL KOCHUKUTTAN, VADANAPPILLY, W/O.VIJAYAN, CHAKKAMADATHIL HOUSE, NADAVILKKARA, VADANAPPILLY.

¶12

ADDL.APPELLANTS 3 TO 5 IMPLEADED:

¶13

REMADEVI NATHAN,

¶14

'MINNARAM', HILL TOP AVENUE, KOLLAMGUDI MUGAL, THRIKKAKARA.P.O., PIN 682 021.

¶15

SUDHEER.M.N., MANALY HOUSE, VENDOOR, P.O.ALAGAPPANAGAR - 682 302.

¶16

SWAPNA RAMAKRISHNAN, VI/179 A, SWATHI, EROOR NORTH, NEAR PISHARY TEMPLE, TRIPUNITHURA.

¶17

ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 3 TO 5, WHO ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED FIRST APPELLANT, IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 1.6.2009 IN I.A.NO.1560/2009.

¶18

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

¶19

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS .:

¶20

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

¶21

THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR.

¶22

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶23

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHEAL

¶24

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2012, ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.53 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶26

¶27

L.A.A.Nos.680, 681,715,725,810, 833,882 of 2006 &53, 809 of 2007

¶28

- - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2009

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.

¶31

These are all appeals preferred by the claimants and the cases pertain to acquisition of land in Puzhakkal Padom in Ayyanthole village in Thrissur district for the purpose of Industrial Development Plots. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 29-07-2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3710/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment refixed the land value at the rate of RS. 5930.4/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 2,400/- per cent. In these appeals, the appellants uniformly contend that the enhancement granted by the reference court is inadequate. According to them, there was evidence on record to grant much more enhancement.

¶32

We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Karthika, learned

¶33

counsel for the appellants and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. Smt.Karthika would argue that the court below

¶34

¶35

LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases

¶36

was not at all justified in rejecting the documents relied on by the claimants. According to her, the comparability of the acquired property and the property covered by the documents relied on, was reported by the Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.C1. Learned counsel submitted that it is on flimsy reasons that the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the documents produced by the claimants.

¶37

Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader would resist the submissions of Smt.Karthika and argue that the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the documents produced by the claimants giving valid reasons. According to Sri.Bsant Balaji even the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment is excessive. Sri.Basant Balaji however would fairly submit that we have by our judgment in L.A.A.No.9/2007 dated 30-06-2009 approved refixation by the same learned Subordinate Judge of the value of exactly similar lands under acquisition at Rs. 7042.35. He submitted that in the light of our judgment granting approval to such refixation , there may be justification in this court refixing the value of the properties in these cases also at Rs. 7042.35 so that there will be a parity in the values

¶38

¶39

LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases

¶40

ultimately awarded by the land acquisition court for properties which were given same value by the land acquisition officer.

¶41

We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions.

¶42

We have made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. We are of the view that the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned judgment for rejecting the various documents put in evidence by the claimants are valid reasons. We note that what the court below has done is to rely on the basis document which was executed two years prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification, give an addition of 20% for passage of time between the date of the document and the date of Section 4(1) notification and to grant further addition towards aspects such as importance of the locality, developments in the locality immediately prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification and subsequently . The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was in general, reasonable. But at the same time, we feel having made a reappraisal of the evidence and having made a more realistic assessment of the market value in the locality at the relevant time and taking into account the potentialities of the properties

¶43

LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases

¶44

¶45

under acquisition, the correct market value of the properties under acquisition in all these cases can be fixed at Rs. 7500/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 3035/- per cent. Accordingly, we refix the market

¶46

value of the lands under acquisition at Rs. 7500/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 3035/- per cent.

¶47

All these appeals will stand allowed to that extent. It is needless to mention that the appellant/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of our refixation of compensation under this judgment.

¶48

All these appeals are allowed as above. But, in the circumstances, parties are directed to suffer their costs in these appeals.

¶49

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶50

P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE

¶51

¶52

LAA.No.680/06 & connected cases

¶53

Smt.Valsala v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Valsala 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

Statutes considered

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

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

Smt.Pushpavally Purushothaman Vs the Special Tahsildar