Allowed

Annie v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2012LA.App./685/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal in a land acquisition case, holding that the appellant's property should be treated as having road frontage and included in Group No.1. The court ordered a re-fixing of the market value and directed the government to pay statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Re-fixed market value of the land at Rs.51,200 per cent and directed the payment of statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Annie 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

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/12TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶7

LA.App..No. 685 of 2003 ( )

¶8

LAR.27/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR

¶9

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶10

ANNIE, W/O. JOSEPH, MURINGATHERY HOUSE, OUNKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶14

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAMKUMAR

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

svs

¶17

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

¶18

--------------------------------------------LAA No.685 of 2003 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2012

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius C.Kuriakose, J

¶21

The claimant is the appellant. It appears to us

¶22

that she is voicing a genuine grievance. The main grievance that she has voiced is that the Land Acquisition Officer and reference court went wrong in treating the property under acquisition belonging to her in Group No.2, i.e. property without road frontage. It has come out in evidence that through another property belonging to her husband which was in fact purchased by the husband with the specific purpose of providing access to the appellant's property, the property under acquisition was having access to the main road. The ground therefore raised is that the appellant's property should have been included in Group No.1, i.e.

¶23

LAA No.685 of 2003 2

¶24

property is with road frontage.

¶25

In view of the admitted position that the appellant and her husband were living together as husband and wife most cordially, it can be presumed that the property under acquisition along with the property which provided access were being enjoyed as a common holding belonging to the husband and wife, we are therefore of the view that the appellant's property should be included in Group No.1. For properties in Group No.1, there is every justification for re-fixing the market value at Rs.51,200/per cent as the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent fixed by the reference court for properties in group No.2 has already been approved by this Court in other judgments. Hence, we allow this appeal and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.51,200/- per cent.

¶26

The appellant will be entitled for all statutory

¶27

benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties will, however,

¶28

LAA No.685 of 2003 3

¶29

suffer their respective costs.

¶30

Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only

¶31

after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memo is remitted.

¶32

Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶33

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶34

css/ true copy

¶35

P.S.TO JUDGE

Annie v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annie 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Koshy,Thavalathil House,Pta. Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector

Kiran B.Thaliyeth Vs Anilkumar Gupta

Yarinchire Retnakaran Vs the District Collector , Kannur

Dr.Dugluss Linsby Vs State of Kerala

Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappu Vs Ashraf T.P.