Dismissed

Executive Engineer, Tc Division v. N. Venugopalan

Kerala HC15 Jan 2013LA.App./247/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A land acquisition appeal challenging the fixation of land value at Rs.10,000 per cent for a garden land acquired for a sub-station. The reference court enhanced the value based on a market report and comparable acquisitions. The High Court found no valid grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Executive Engineer, Tc Division Vs N. Venugopalan — 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 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/25TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

LA.App..No. 247 of 2005 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR.84/2001 DATED 31-03-2003 OF THE SUB COURT, KOYILANDI.

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C.DIVISION,BALUSSERY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.S.SHARAN, SC, K.S.E.BOARD

¶10

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶11

N.VENUGOPALAN, CHAIRMAN,TRUSTEE BOARD,KIZHOOR DEVASWOM P.O. KILUR.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABDUL SHUKKOOR

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶16

L.A.A.No.247 Of 2005

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2013.

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The 2^nd respondent is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.84/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandi. An extent of 3.41 cents of garden land comprised in R.S.Nos.44/9 & 44/12 of Payyoli Village belonging to the claimant was acquired for Meladi 33 KV Sub Station of K.S.E.B. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the acquired land @ Rs.2,942/- per cent. Section 4(1) notification was published on 5.8.1999. Reference court re-fixed the land value @ Rs.10,000/- per cent.

¶20

The claimant produced Exts.A1 & A2 in support of the claim for enhanced compensation. In Ext.C1 report the commissioner reported that the extent of Ext.A2 property is only 0.99 cents and Ext.A2 cannot be accepted for assessing the value of the acquired land. The commissioner also reported that Ext.A1 property lies abutting National Highway at the southern part of Payyoli Town. The commissioner further reported that the

¶21

::2::

¶22

L.A.A.No.247 Of 2005

¶23

acquired property may fetch a market value @ Rs.10,000/- per cent. The court below noticed the fact that the property was acquired for facilitating way to the properties mentioned in L.A.R.Nos.82/2001 & 83/2001. Those properties were also acquired for the very same purpose under the very same notification. The reference court granted enhanced land value @ Rs.10,000/- per cent in the said two cases. Adopting the same value, the reference court re-fixed the land value for the acquired land at the same rate. The fixation of land value @ Rs.10,000/per cent was on the basis of Ext.C1 report and judgments in L.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2001. The re-fixation and enhancement in the circumstances is just and reasonable.

¶24

This Court find that no valid grounds are made out for interference. The appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶25

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶26

bkn/-

Executive Engineer, Tc Division v. N. Venugopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer, Tc Division v. N. Venugopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamalamma Vs Krishnankutty

S.Rajendran Vs Managing Director, Jayalalitha Transport

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Velu

State of Kerala Vs Kochukutty

V.R.Ananthan Vs Sunil Kumar N.B.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs E.B.Robin