Partly allowed

Pullanhi Veettil Kumaran v. the Special Tahsildar La, Kannur

Kerala HC8 Jan 2013LA.App./10/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench allowed a land acquisition appeal partly. It set aside the lower court's land value fixation and fixed new rates at Rs.10,000 and Rs.6,500 per cent respectively based on similar reference cases and a Commissioner's report.

What did the court decide?

Land value modified to Rs.10,000 per cent for item No.1 and Rs.6,500 per cent for item No.2.

Pullanhi Veettil Kumaran Vs the Special Tahsildar La, Kannur — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/18TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

LA.App..No. 10 of 2005 ( )

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2004 IN LAR.202/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶8

PULLANHI VEETTIL KUMARAN "RAM VILLA" ADOOR P.O.KADACHIRA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.SREEJA SOHAN.K SRI.K.AMBILY SRI.JOYAN P.ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, KANNUR.

¶12

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD.

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0801-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

al/-

¶15

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶16

L.A.A. No. 10 OF 2005

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of January 2013

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The claimant in LAR .202/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery is the appellant. An extent of 0.889 cents of land, 1.803 cents of land and a structure situated therein was acquired for Chova Nadal by-pass road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent for . 889 cents (item No.1) and Rs.3,000/- per cent for 1.803 cents (item No.2).

¶20

The court below after considering the materials on record refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.7500/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively for item Nos.1 and 2.

¶21

This reference case was tried jointly with four other reference cases. The claimants in all the reference cases relied on Exts.A1 to A3 documents and Ext..X1 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Ext.A1 is the sale deed dated 22.6.1996. An extent of 10 cents of land was purchased by the vendor for consideration fixed at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent. Ext.A2 is another sale deed dated 3.2.1997 showing assignment of 6.33 cents of land at the rate of Rs. 28343/- per cent. Ext.A3

¶22

L.A.A.No.10/2005 2

¶23

dated 5.5.1997 for 15 cents of land. The land value fixed is at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per cent. The Commissioner in Ext.X1 report reported that all the properties covered by reference are lying on the side of Kuthuparamba-Kannur main road. The court also noticed that Kannur-Thalassery National Highway is situated 500 metres away from the acquired land.

¶24

By placing reliance on the land value fixed in similar reference case, the reference court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively for item Nos.1 and 2.

¶25

The Commissioner in Ext.X1 report reported that the basic land adopted by the claimants and the acquired lands are similar and similarly situated. The reference court placed reliance on Exts.A1 to A3 and the report of the Commissioner reporting that Exts.A1 to A3 properties are similar and similarly situated. This court is of the view that the land value fixed for the acquired land is not just and reasonable.

¶26

In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that the claimant in LAR 202/2001 who is the appellant herein is entitled to a reasonable enhancement of compensation. Taking into consideration the land value fixed in Exts.A1 to A3 sale deeds and Ext.X1 report, this Court is of the view that the land

¶27

L.A.A.No.10/2005 3

¶28

value should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent for item No.1 and Rs.6,500/- for item No.2 respectively.

¶29

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award

¶30

passed by the reference court is modified. Land value is refixed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6,500/- respectively for item Nos.1 and 2.

¶31

The appeal is partly allowed. The land value in LAR 202/2001 is modified as above. Other directions issued in the impugned award will stand.

¶32

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶33

al/-

Pullanhi Veettil Kumaran v. the Special Tahsildar La, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pullanhi Veettil Kumaran v. the Special Tahsildar La, Kannur

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

Phonographic Performance Limited Vs Casino Hotel - Cgh Earth

The Regional Director, Esi Corpn. Vs M/S. Arjuna Natural Extracts (P) Ltd.

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs James George and Others

O.T.Chackochan Vs Sri.K.G.Mohan Lal

Mrs.Brigit Scariachan Vs S.Theertha

E.L.Antony Vs Shiju and Two Others