Partly allowed

Chacko v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2013LA.App./1326/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined land acquisition appeals challenging the fixed land value and entitlement to compensation for injurious affection. It upheld the Sub Court's valuation based on a comparable property relied upon by the appellant but granted additional compensation for the narrow strip of land left behind.

What did the court decide?

The land value fixed by the Sub Court in both appeals is confirmed. The appellant in LAA No.1326/09 is granted additional compensation of Rs.14,625/- along with statutory benefits for injurious affect

Chacko 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 S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/20TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

LA.App..No. 1326 of 2009 ( )

¶6

LAR.NO. 110/2007 of SUB COURT, PALA.

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶8

CHACKO S/O. CHACKO, KAYANBLACKAL HOUSE CHENNAD KARA, THALAPPALAM ERATTUPETTA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.C.CHACKO ALIAS JOY KAYANPLACKAL HOUSE CHENNAD KARA, THALAPPALAM ERATTUPETTA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) SRI.T.J.MICHAEL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTD BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2013, ALONG WITH LAA. 1327/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

L.A.A. NO.1326/2009

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

APPELLANTS ANNEXURES

¶18

A1:- NOTORIZED COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1209/97 OF ERATTUPETTA SRO DTD 15.5.97.

¶19

A2:-NOTORIZED COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1530/95 OF ERATTUPETTA SRO DTD 26.4.95.

¶20

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶26

L.A.A.Nos.1326 and 1327 of 2009

¶27

Dated this, the 11^th day of November 2013

¶28

Judgment

¶29

Siri Jagan, J.

¶30

The appellants in these two appeals are the claimants in L.A.R.Nos.110/07 and 126/07 before the Sub Court, Pala. The properties belonging to the appellants were acquired by the State as per a notification dated 30.06.2004 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.23,109/- per are. The Sub Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, re-fixed the land value at Rs.45,000/- per are. The appellants are challenging the land value fixed by the Sub Court.

¶31

The contention of the appellants is that the appellants had produced several documents before the commissioner, who had compared the properties involved in those documents with the acquired properties and reported that the properties are comparable, despite which, the Sub Court did not take into account the commissioner's report for the purpose of

¶32

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009 2

¶33

fixing the land value based on those documents. It is also submitted that in the case of L.A.A.No.1326/09, after acquisition, 1.30 ares of land was left, which is a narrow strip, in which no construction could be made by the appellant and consequently, the same has diminished in value. The appellant claimed compensation for injurious affection, which was not considered by the Sub Court, is the contention of the appellant.

¶34

We have heard the learned Government Pleader

¶35

also.

¶36

The Sub Court has considered the basis document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and came to the conclusion that the same is not in respect of comparable properties. Thereafter, the Sub Court considered Ext.A2 judgment in L.A.RNo.139/07 of the same court in which, the land value fixed was Rs.45,000/- per are. The Sub Court came to the conclusion that the property involved in Ext.A2 document is very near to the acquired land, which was acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. On that ground, the Sub Court fixed the same land value fixed in L.A.R.No.139/07 for the acquired property also.

¶37

¶38

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009

¶39

The appellants would canvass for the proposition that the property involved in Ext.A2 and the acquired properties are not similar in nature and the acquired properties have better potential than the property involved in Ext.A2. It is further submitted that the lands compared by the commissioner, which are comparable properties, have fetched much better value than Rs.45,000/-. The commissioner cannot search out documents in respect of properties and come to a conclusion that the properties involved in those documents are comparable with the acquired properties. All that he can do is to ascertain the matters, which he has been directed by the Court to ascertain. There is no evidence to show that the documents in respect of the properties compared by the commissioner have been produced in evidence also. The only documents mentioned in the impugned judgment are Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney executed in favour of AW1 and Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the judgment in LAR No.139/07. Such a comparison of properties made by the commissioner as per documents, which have not been produced before court, cannot be the basis for fixing the land value. The appellants have not cared to

¶40

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009 4

¶41

adduce any evidence to prove that the acquired properties have better potential than the property involved in Ext.A2 judgment. In fact, when the appellant himself has relied on Ext.A2 judgment by producing and marking the same in evidence, in the absence of other evidence to show that the acquired property is more valuable than the property involved in Ext.A2 judgment, there is nothing wrong in the Tribunal fixing the land value based on Ext.A2 judgment relied on by the appellant himself. Moreover, the Sub Court has come to the conclusion that the property involved in Ext.A2 judgment is in the same survey block as the acquired property and both properties were acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. In such circumstances, we do not find anything wrong in the Sub Court adopting the same land value fixed in Ext.A2 judgment for the acquired property also. Although the appellants have produced some documents along with IA Nos.3878/09 and 3886/09 to prove that the acquired property is similar to the properties involved in those documents, we are not inclined to allow the applications at this stage since the appellant has not shown sufficient reasons as to why he could not

¶42

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009 5

¶43

produce the same before the lower court. In the above circumstances, we do not find any infirmity whatsoever, in the judgment of the Sub Court, whereby the Sub Court has re-fixed the land value based on Ext.A2 judgment in respect of comparable properties. However, in respect of LAA No.1326/09, as far as the property left is 1.30 ares, which is lying as a narrow strip of land, certainly, there will be some reduction in the land value of the remaining land after acquisition. Therefore, we are granting 25% of the land value fixed for the acquired land as compensation for injurious affection for the 1.30 ares of land left with the appellant after acquisition. The compensation under that head would come to Rs.14,625/-. Accordingly, the appellant in LAA No.1326/09 would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.14,625/- fo injurious affection. The land value fixed by the Sub Court in both the appeals is confirmed. Accordingly, LAA No.1326/09 is disposed of granting compensation for injurious affection as stated above and LAA No.1327/09 is dismissed. The appellant would be entitled to all

¶44

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009

¶45

¶46

statutory benefits for injurious affection as applicable under law.

¶47

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶48

K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶49

sta

¶50

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009 7

¶51

LAA 1326 & 1327 OF 2009 8

Chacko v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chacko 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

K.v.Joseph Vs Biju Mathew

State of Kerala Vs C.K. Parangoden

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs P. Jayarajan and Another

Kunjurajan Vs P.T.R.Arumugham

Esi Corpn. & Another Vs M/S. House of Foods & Chemicals (P) Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs Vilasini