Land Acquisition Appeal by the State challenging high compensation fixed for wet land acquired for railway doubling. Court held enhancement was not exorbitant despite lower reference to titled house sale due to lack of road access in acquired plot.
The appeal was dismissed and all interlocutory applications stood dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/12TH BHADRA, 1935
LA.APP..NO. 456 OF 2013 ()
L.A.R. NO.69 OF 2009, SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR
APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT:
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAYS KAYAMKULAM
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J. JOSE
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT:
1. GOPALAN NAIR KEEZHEDATHU KALEEKKAL PADINJATTUM MURI CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGNNUR TALUK-689 121.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM SOUTH-683021.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW,SC, RAILWAYS
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
L.A.A. No.456 of 2013
====================================
Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2013
J U D G M E N T
First respondent is served. Second respondent appears through counsel.
L.A.A. .No.456 of 2013
-: 2 :-
also awarded. The State is aggrieved and has preferred the appeal.
the advantage of road frontage on two sides. It is a residential plot. But the acquired land as per Ext.R1 is a wet land and has no road access. Hence the reference court was not inclined to act upon Ext.A1 but thought that in view of the decision cited supra, the land value fixed by the LAO being on the lower side has to be enhanced.
L.A.A. .No.456 of 2013
-: 3 :-
Ext.A1. Though it takes in a tiled house with three rooms and Kitchen, Ext.A1 gives some idea regarding the land value in the locality. Considering that, the decision cited supra and that the total compensation awarded by the LAO is only Rs.105.30 per Are and that even with the enhancement given by the reference court land value came only to Rs.894.70, I do not find reason to interfere as if the enhancement is exorbitant and call for interference.
The appeal is dismissed.
All Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhanced compensation of Rs.894.70 per Acre fixed by the reference court calls for interference.
Whether the reference court erred in not acting upon Exhibit A1 (sale deed of titled house) for valuation purposes.
Whether the enhancement awarded is exorbitant given the characteristics of the acquired wet land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Explained¶23
Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2002 (1) KLT 381)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAYS
GOPALAN NAIR
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER SOUTHERN RAILWAY
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
