Dismissed

State v. a. Narayanan Balakrishnan

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013LA.App./128/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam dismissed an appeal filed by the State against an order enhancing land value by the Sub Court under the Land Acquisition Act. The court held that the enhanced value was not excessive given the absence of evidence from the State to prove a comparable market value.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the land value fixed at Rs. 11,856/- per are by the Sub Court was affirmed.

State Vs a. Narayanan Balakrishnan — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶6

LA.App..No. 128 of 2001 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 24/1990 of SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶8

APPELLANT(S)

¶9

STATE OF KERALA

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

A.NARAYANAN BALAKRISHNAN CHAMAVILA VEEDU AMBALATHUMKALA KOLANNOOR MURI EZHUKONE VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA.

¶13

RR1 BY ADV. SMT.V.SUJATHA

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-112013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

¶18

1. ANNEXURE -1 - AFFIDAVIT OF ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶19

//True copy//

¶20

PA to Judge

¶21

S.Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ ==============================

¶22

L.A.A.No.128 of 2001

¶23

=============================== Dated this, the 28^th day of November, 2013.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

K.Ramakrishnan, J.

¶26

State/respondent in L.A.R No.24/90 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara is the appellant herein. Certain lands belonging to the first respondent was acquired by the State for Water Authority as per notification dated 05.05.1987 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate Rs.6476/- per are. On the basis of the application given by the first respondent, the case was referred to the Sub Court, Kottarakkara and the Sub Court numbered the reference as L.A.R.No.24/1990 and enhanced the land value to Rs.11,856/- per are. The above award of the reference court has been challenged by the State in this appeal.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent.

¶28

The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that except the interested testimony of AW1 and Ext.A1 document, there is no other evidence to prove the land value. Further, there is

¶29

L.A.A.No.128 of 2001 : 2 :

¶30

no evidence to show that Ext.A1 property is identical and similar or comparable property with that of the properties acquired. So, the Sub judge was not justified in relying on Ext.A1 document and enhancing the land value to Rs.11,856/- per are. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount awarded is just and

¶31

proper.

¶32

We have considered the rival contentions of both parties

¶33

in detail.

¶34

The land acquisition officer has not produced the basic document relied on by them for the purpose of fixing land value. The first respondent has produced Ext. A1 document which was mentioned in the notes of award contained Ext.R1 file. The only reason given by the Land Acquisition Officer for not relying on this document is that it is situated 2 Kms South West of the land under acquisition. There is no similarity between these documents and

¶35

the land under acquisition. So, it was rejected. AW1 had gone to the witness box and stated that the property taken as basis land is not a comparable property with that of the acquired land and this aspect has not been seriously challenged in cross examination as well. So, the learned Sub Judge has come to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the land acquisition officer for this

¶36

L.A.A.No.128 of 2001 : 3 :

¶37

property is not just and reasonable. Ext.A1 was relied on by the leaned Sub judge on the ground that it is situated in the area which is having lesser importance compared to the land in question. AW1 has given evidence regarding the importance of the property acquired as well. It is also situated on the side of the National Highway. So, under these circumstances, relying on A1 the learned Sub Judge has enhanced land value to Rs.11,856/- per are. In the absence of any other evidence adduced on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, the learned Sub Judge had done an educational guess work to fix the market value of the property under acquisition. Considering the nature of evidence given by AW1 and Ext.A1 document produced by the claimant, it cannot be said that the land value fixed by the learned Sub Judge as Rs.11,856/- per are is excessive. We do not find any reason to interfere with the land value fixed by the court below and the appeal lacks merit and

¶38

has to be dismissed. We do so.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

S. Siri Jagan, Jugde.

¶42

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶43

¶44

[True copy]

¶45

P.A to Judge

State v. a. Narayanan Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. a. Narayanan Balakrishnan

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

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Madhu

Merlin Davis Vs P.R.Radhakrishnan

The Proprietor, Burhani Industries Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs P.Sabu

Giji Joseph Vs Abdulkhader