Allowed

Martin Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2012LA.App./85/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This LAA allowed the appeal against the reference court's decision to decline enhancing land value. The High Court refixed the market value at Rs. 3 lakhs per are, correcting the rejection of comparable evidence (Ext.A1) and granted statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Land value refixed at Rs. 3 lakhs per are; compensation enhanced based on this rate; statutory benefits granted under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Martin Paul 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 & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/24TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

LA.App..No. 85 of 2012 ()

¶6

LAR.145/2009 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶8

MARTIN PAUL, S/O. KUNJIPOULO, PAYYAPPILLY KOLUVAN (H), VAPPALASSERY.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR, SRI.K.SREESAKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS::

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶13

SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION),

¶16

SOUTHERN RAILWAY,

¶17

OFFICE OF THE DY. C.E.(CONSTRUCTION),

¶18

KOCHI-682 016.

¶19

R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.R. SHYAM KUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN ,SC, RAILWAYS.

¶20

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

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

¶23

LAA No.85 of 2012.

¶24

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2012.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶27

The claimant is aggrieved by the order of the reference court by which, the market value of land, which was acquired for the purpose of railway, ie., in the Angamaly Sabarimala railway line was declined to be enhanced. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification, published on 14/11/2006. The land acquisition officer included the property in Category No. VIII, that is, wet land having access to the road frontage and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,15,087/- per Are.

¶28

Before the reference court, the appellant had a claim for compensation for injurious affection in respect of his unacquired property. The above claim was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge by finding that the value of unacquired property has been

¶29

LAA No.85 of 2012. -:2:-

¶30

diminished by 10% and compensation for injurious affection has been awarded on that basis. Th above part of the award is not under challenge.

¶31

However, when coming to the land value, the only document which was produced by the appellant was Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was in respect of dry land in the same village. It reflected a land value of Rs.5,20,000/- per Are. The reference court became inclined to place any reliance on Ext.A1 for the reason that there is no comparison with the property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition. Taking that view of the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge discarded Ext.A1 from consideration and would confirm the land value awarded by the reference court.

¶32

In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging the adequacy of land value refixed by the reference court.

¶33

We have heard the submissions of Shri B. Jayasankar, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior Government Pleader Shri C. R. Syam Kumar as well as learned standing counsel for the railways. It is submitted that the court below was not justified in

¶34

LAA No.85 of 2012. -:3:-

¶35

discarding Ext.A1 completely. Though, it is true that Ext.A3 is in respect of dry land, the learned Subordinate could have given proportionate increase in the value of wet lands by relying on Ext.A1 itself. Ext.A1 property was situated in the same village and not far away from the property under acquisition. The learned counsel took us to the order of the reference court in LAR No.75/2010. Shri Jayashankar, learned counsel submitted that relying on the very same Ext.A1, the learned Subordinate Judge in the above subsequent case, refixed the land value of identical lands of Rs.3,71,800/-. He requested that in the present appeal in which the land value claimed at the rate of 3,30,000/- per are, be allowed in full.

¶36

The learned standing counsel for the railway as well as the senior Government Pleader, however, opposed the above submissions. According to the them, Ext.A1 was not a relevant document and there was no comparison between the property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition. Regarding the land value awarded by the reference court in LAR No.75/2010, both of them submitted that there is every likelihood that the award will be challenged before this Court.

¶37

LAA No.85 of 2012. -:4:-

¶38

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having discarded Ext.A1 completely. Ext.A1 property was after all in the same village. The distance between Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition was only 400 metres. There should be some co-relation between the values of different categories of the property lying in same compact area.

¶39

Even the Land Acquisition Officer has maintained a ratio between the values of wet lands and corresponding dry land. We don't think that the ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct. But, still we can always find that there is a co-relation between the values of dry lands and wet lands situated with in the same local area, we are of the view that taking cue from Ext.A1 itself, the market value of the land under acquisition which is dry land, can be fixed at Rs.3 lakhs.

¶40

We allow the appeal refixing the value at Rs.3 lakhs per are. The enhanced compensation which will be awarded to the appellant is on

¶41

LAA No.85 of 2012. -:5:-

¶42

the basis of the above refixation. The appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, subject to the conditions we have imposed in our order condoning the delay in C.M.Appln No.174/2012.

¶43

Appeal is allowed. However, decree copy will be issued to the appellant after ensuring that the full court fee on the appeal memorandum is remitted.

¶44

Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶45

Sd/- A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

krj

Martin Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Paul 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

Thresiamma Vs Kochi International Aiport Society

Justin Vs Jacob Shaji

Vijayan Vs Babu

State of Kerala Vs S.Prakasan

Pothandy Nanu Vs State of Kerala

The Sree Sankaracharya Unty of Sanskrit Vs State of Kerala