Partly allowed

Abdul Salam v. the Secretary, Kannur Kunicipality

Kerala HC18 Jan 2013LA.App./17/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a partial appeal in a land acquisition case, modifying the lower court's judgment to enhance the compensation for the structure by 50% instead of the previously granted 20%, deeming the lower award unjust and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the court below are modified by granting a 50% increase to the structural value instead of the 20% granted earlier.

Abdul Salam Vs the Secretary, Kannur Kunicipality — 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

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

LA.App..No. 17 of 2010 (D)

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR.412/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 17-01-2008)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶8

B.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. KUNHAHAMMED, AGED 71 YEARS,PRESIDENT,JUMMAYATH AHAMADIYA BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIA MAIN BRANCH,THAVAKKARA KANNUR DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE SECRETARY KANNUR MUNICIPALITY.

¶12

THE SPL. TAHSILDAR, (LA) KANNUR.

¶13

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI R,R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1801-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

al.

¶16

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶17

L.A.A No. 17 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of January 2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The claimant in LAR No.412/2005 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery is the appellant. The extent of property acquired is 42 Sq.M garden land with compound wall and gate. The property was acquired for the formation of approach road to Thavakkara bus stand. Section 4(1) notification was published on 29.11.01. The court below granted enhancement in land value and refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per cent. The court below granted 20% enhancement to the value of the structure. The claimant claimed that he spent Rs.43,630/- for the construction of the new compound wall. The estimate is produced and marked as Ext.A2. The claimant also produced bills and vouchers marked as Ext.A3 series. According to the claimant after purchasing the property, he had constructed the compound wall using granite stone and plastered it and an iron gate having 12 feet width and 8 feet height was also fixed. The Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs. 8843/- for the value of the structure. The

¶21

L.A.A.No.17/2010 2

¶22

trial court granted 20% enhancement to the value of the structure. In the appeal, the claimant claimed enhancement to the value of the structure alone.

¶23

Ext.C1 is the report and the plan submitted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has estimated the cost of construction of compound wall and gate as Rs. 30,000/-. The court below held that the valuation of the compound wall by the PWD seems to be proper and correct, that however, the rate calculated by PWD is normally 20% less than the market value of the materials. Considering the said fact the court below granted 20% increase to the structural value. The Commissioner estimated the cost for the construction of compound wall and gate as Rs.30,000/-. The fixation of value of the structure and gate as Rs.8,843/- is not just and reasonable. Therefore, from the report of the Commissioner, it is seen that, the compound wall is constructed using granite stones and plastered it and an iron gate with 8 feet height has been fixed. Considering the materials on record it is seen that the compensation awarded under this head is not just and reasonable. I find that 50% increase for the structure will serve the ends of justice.

¶24

L.A.A.No.17/2010 3

¶25

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is modified by granting 50% increase to the structural value instead of 20% granted by the court below. In all other respects the judgment and decree passed by the court below shall stand. No order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶27

al/-

Abdul Salam v. the Secretary, Kannur Kunicipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. the Secretary, Kannur Kunicipality

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

The Joint Director, Esi Corporation, Vs M/S.Eastern Rug Mills

P.K.Moideenkunhi Vs Abdul Rahiman

Nishi Moideen Vs Haridas & Ors.

M.Gurumurthy Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs M/S.Rohini Plasto Pack

The Regional Director, Esi Corpn. Vs Rekha Nandagopal