Partly allowed

K.M.Suhara v. Spl.Tahsildar (La),Kasargod & Others

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014LA.App./271/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala entertained a Land Acquisition Appeal concerning compensation for 0.0247 hectares of land in Kasaragod. The court enhanced the land value per cent from Rs.25,000 to Rs.60,000 and awarded additional compensation for injurious affection.

What did the court decide?

L.A.R. judgement modified: Land value fixed at Rs.60,000/- per cent and additional Rs.25,000/- per cent awarded for injurious affection.

K.M.Suhara Vs Spl.Tahsildar (La),Kasargod & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

LA.App..No. 271 of 2009 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 52/2007 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 31-10-2008

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

K.M.SUHARA, W/O.MAHIN, NEAR KALNAD BUS STOP, CHEMNAD VILLAGE, P.O.KALNAD KASARAGOD DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),KASARAGOD.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, PWD,OPP. MILITARY HOSPITAL, KANNUR.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.

¶14

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHAEL

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

HARUN-UL-RASHID & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶17

--------------------------------------------------

¶18

L.A.A.No.271 of 2009

¶19

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2014

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶22

The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 in L.A.R.No.52/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. The extent of property acquired is 0.0247 hectares(6.1 cents) in re-survey No.137/12 Pt. of Chemnad Village. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value @ Rs.15,000/- per cent. The Reference Court enhanced and refixed the land value @ Rs.25,000/- per cent. The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶23

The husband of the claimant was examined as AW1 and produced Exhibit A1 sale deed. Exhibit X1 is the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Exhibit X2 is a plan attached to Exhibit X1 report. In Exhibit X1, the Commissioner reported that the acquired land is situated touching the State Highway. The Commissioner also reported that the basic land is situated 100 metres away from State Highway and that there is no proper approach road also. The court below found that the basic land is not similar and similarly situated as that of the acquired land.

¶24

L.A.A.No.271/09

¶25

-2-

¶26

The Commissioner also reported that the acquired land is situated very adjacent to the road margin of the KasaragodKanhangad State Highway, that the property is situated about 1 KM distance from the Melparamba Town and within 5 Kms distance from Kasaragod Municipality. It is also reported that the acquired land is lying nearer to Bakel Tourism Project. Taking into account the importance of the locality wherein the property is situated and the potentiality of the land being lying near to Bakl Tourism Project, the Commissioner reported that the approximate market value of the land is 1.20 lakhs per cent. He has also noticed the fact that the property is lying in an important locality facing Kanhangad-Kasaragod State Highway.

¶27

We notice that the property is lying nearer to the Bakel Tourism Project. Considering the potentiality and the importance of the acquired land, we feel that the claimant is entitled to get at least Rs.60,000/- per cent.

¶28

The left out portion, after acquisition is only one cent. The claimant has claimed compensation for injurious affection on the ground that from out of the the total holding one cent was left out and the same cannot be used for any purpose. The Commissioner also reported that only one cent is the land remained with the claimant

¶29

L.A.A.No.271/09 -3-

¶30

after acquisition and this strip of land is by the side of the road to be formed. The court below concluded that the balance portion cannot be conveniently enjoyed and the division has injuriously affected the rights of the claimant. The court below granted Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards injurious affection. In view of the enhancement granted towards land value, we feel that the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection.

¶31

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal is modified. The claimant is entitled to land value @ Rs.60,000/- per cent. The claimant is also entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards injurious affection. She is entitled to all eligible statutory benefits. In all other respects, the judgment and decree of the court below shall stand confirmed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

HARUN-UL-RASHID , JUDGE

¶34

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

dsn

K.M.Suhara v. Spl.Tahsildar (La),Kasargod & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Suhara v. Spl.Tahsildar (La),Kasargod & Others

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.K.Mammu Vs the Special Tahsildar(La),Ernakulam

State of Kerala, Rep. by District Collec Vs Soudhamini and Another

State of Kerala Vs Sri. Thomas

Vishal Infractructure Limited Vs Paulose George Construction Company Pvt.Ltd

N.Velappan Vs State of Kerala

Nalini Vs State of Kerala