Allowed

Aleyamma Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2013CRP/31/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the Kerala High Court noted that the executing court failed to consider the enhanced land compensation fixed in L.A.A. No.265 of 1991 while executing an earlier award. The Court observed that while interest on solatium was denied in that judgment, other enhanced benefits were overlooked by the executing court. Consequently, the impugned order setting aside the earlier award

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 20.09.2012 set aside and E.P. No.327 of 2007 remitted to executing court for fresh decision.

Aleyamma Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/22ND MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRP.NO. 31 OF 2013 ()

¶6

E.P. NO.327 OF 2008 IN L.A.R. NO.31 OF 1986, PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ADDL.DECREE HOLDERS:

¶8

1. ALEYAMMA ABRAHAM W/O.CHACKO ABRAHAM, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA KARA NATTAKKAM VILLAGE, POOVANTHURUTH POST.

¶9

2. LIZY THOMAS D/O.CHACKO ABRAHAM, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA KARA NATTAKKAM VILLAGE, POOVANTHURUTH POST.

¶10

3. SUJA JOHN

¶11

D/O.CHACKO ABRAHAM, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA KARA POOVANTHURUTH POST, NATTAKAM VILLAGE.

¶12

4. JESSY EAPPEN D/O.CHACKO ABRAHAM, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA KARA POOVANTHURUTH POST, NATTAKAM VILLAGE.

¶13

5. BINDHU VINOD D/O.CHACKO ABRAHAM, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA KARA POOVANTHURUTH POST, NATTAKAM VILLAGE.

¶14

6. C.A.JACOB D/O.CHACKO ABRAHAM, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA KARA POOVANTHURUTH POST, NATTAKAM VILLAGE.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶16

C.R.P. NO.31 OF 2013

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶18

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY LESLIE

¶20

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.0.2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶22

==================================== C.R.P. No.31 of 2013

¶23

====================================

¶24

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2013

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Order dated 20.09.2012 in E.P. No.327 of 2007 in L.A.R. No.31 of 1986 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam is under challenge in this Civil Revision.

¶27

Land belonging to the petitioners was acquired and as the learned counsel submits, Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 09.08.1984 allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,692/- per Are. As petitioners were aggrieved, there was reference to the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam where the reference was taken on file as L.A.R. No.31 of 1986. As per judgment dated 03.08.1990 learned Sub Judge enhanced land value by Rs.1,248/- per Are and allowed petitioners to recover solatium, 12% increase and interest on the amount awarded. Petitioners filed E.P. No.327 of 2007 and the respondent-State deposited Rs.2,36,056/- on 05.06.1993. Respondent-State also indicated the manner in which the said amount was to be appropriated. That amount, it is not disputed was withdrawn by the petitioners.

¶28

C.R.P. No.31 of 2013

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

Petitioners challenged judgment dated 03.08.1990 in L.A.R. No.31 of 1986 in this Court in L.A.A. No.265 of 1991. This Court by judgment dated 26.11.1998 fixed land value at Rs.5,681/- per Are but making it clear that petitioners shall not be entitled to get interest on solatium and 12% increase on the enhanced compensation.

¶31

It is contended by the learned counsel that executing court has not adverted to the compensation enhanced by this Court as per judgment dated 26.11.1991 in L.A.A. No.265 of 1991. According to the learned counsel even excluding interest on solatium and 12% increase (as directed by this Court), petitioners are entitled to get Rs.1,54,875/- with further interest. The said aspect was not taken into account by the executing court.

¶32

Further contention learned counsel has advanced is that question of re-appropriation of the amount already withdrawn when full satisfaction was recorded (with respect to the award passed by the reference court) does not arise.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader has contended that in the judgment in L.A.A. No.265 of 1991 it is specifically stated that petitioners are not entitled to get interest on solatium and

¶34

C.R.P. No.31 of 2013

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

12% increase under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and hence the claim of petitioners cannot succeed.

¶37

Assuming that this Court did not permit petitioners

¶38

to realize interest on solatium and 12% increase under Section 23(1A) of the Act, still executing court had to consider whether petitioners are entitled to realize enhanced compensation and other benefits allowed by this Court. These aspects of the matter do not appear to have been considered by the executing court. In that view of the matter the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the executing court for fresh decision.

¶39

Contention learned counsel for petitioners has raised as to reopening of the amount already appropriated shall also be decided by the executing court having regard to the relevant law on the point.

¶40

Resultantly, this Civil Revision is allowed as under:

¶41

(I) Order dated 20.09.2012 in E.P. No.327 of 2007 in L.A.R. No.31 of 1986 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam is set aside.

¶42

(ii) E.P. No.327 of 2007 is remitted to the executing court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made

¶43

C.R.P. No.31 of 2013

¶44

-: 4 :-

¶45

above and in view of the judgment this Court rendered in L.A.A. No.265 of 1991.

¶46

(iii) Parties shall appear in the executing court on 15.03.2013.

¶47

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶48

vsv

Aleyamma Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleyamma Abraham 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

5EJANI and Others Vs Selvister and Another

State of Kerala Vs P.M.Raman Namboothiripad

Tomy Vs the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board

Kalpathur Thulichaputhiyeath Rohini Amma Vs Kannambathpara Kshethra Committee Rep.by Its President & Hereditary Trustee Kolliyil Balakrishnan

Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji Vs Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamiji

Arunkumar Vs Leela Rajan