Partly allowed

K.P.Pathummunni v. the Dist.Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC11 Jun 2014LA.App./347/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal partially, enhancing the compensation for agricultural land acquired for airport expansion. The court fixed the land value at 13,000/- per cent, slightly modifying the rate established in a connected Division Bench judgment, considering the land's specific commercial and industrial potential.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree modified; land value fixed at 13,000/- per cent. Claimants entitled to enhanced compensation and statutory benefits.

K.P.Pathummunni Vs the Dist.Collector, Malappuram — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶7

LA.App..No. 347 of 2004 (B)

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 101/1998 of SUB COURT, MANJERI DATED 29-11-2003

¶9

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS B,C,D AND F TO L:

¶10

K.P.PATHUMMUNNI, W/O. KUNHALAN, KIZHIYIL HOUSE, KOTTAYIL, VALLIKKUNNU NORTH.

¶11

K.P.MOHAMMED, ADVOCATE, ***** (DIED) THAYYIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MANJERI.

¶12

K.P.MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. KUNHAMMED, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶13

K.P.MAIYUMMA, W/O. DR.VERANKUTTY, JASSIN MANZIL, KUTTIPURAM.

¶14

K.P.HUSSAIN, S/O. KUNHAMMED, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶15

K.P.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. KUNHAMMED, *(DIED AND LRs IMPLEADED) THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶16

K.P.ABDUL KALAM ASAD, S/O. KUNHAMMED, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶17

K.P.ABDUL KARIM, S/O. KUNHAMMED, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶18

K.P.SUBAIDA, W/O. MUSTHAFFA, HAJIYARPALLY, MALAPPURAM.

¶19

KOYAPPATHODY PALAPPARA FATHIMA, W/O. K.P. KUNHARAMUTTY, THAYYIL HOUSE, KODENGADU NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM, DESOM.

¶20

**_ADDL.APPELLANTS IMPLEADED_*

¶21

C.P.ZUBEIDA, WIDOW OF K.P.ABDUL RAZZAK, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶22

(CNTD..............2)

¶23

LA.App..No. 347 of 2004 (B)

¶24

::2::

¶25

K.P.SHEREEFA, D/O.K.P.ABDUL RAZZAK, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶26

K.P.SHAMEEM, S/O.K.P.ABDUL RAZZAK, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY.

¶27

K.P.SHAMMA (MINOR), D/O.K.P.ABDUL RAZZAK, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY, REP.BY MOTHER ZUBEIDA.

¶28

K.P.SHAHAD (MINOR), S/O.K.P.ABDUL RAZZAK, THAZHATHEKUNNATH VEEDU, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY, REP. BY MOTHER ZUBEIDA.

¶29

ADDL. APPELLANTS A11 TO A15 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF

¶30

DECEASED A6 AS PER ORDER DTD. 18.7.2005 IN I.A.NO.2131/2005.

¶31

FATHIMA M., W/O.K.P.MOHAMMED, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MANJERI.

¶32

FEBINA K.P., D/O.K.P.MOHAMMED, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MANJERI.

¶33

FARIDA K.P., D/O.K.P.MUHAMMED, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MANJERI.

¶34

FASAL.K.P, S/O.K.P.MUHAMMED, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MANJERI.

¶35

ADDL.APPELLANTS A16 TO A19 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF

¶36

THE DECEASED A2 AS PER ORDER DTD. 5.11.2009 IN I.A.NO.3893/2009.

¶37

BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

¶38

SMT.S.AMINA

¶39

ADDL.A16-19 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

¶40

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶41

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶42

AIR PORT DIRECTOR, AIR PORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT.

¶43

(CNTD........3)

¶44

LA.App..No. 347 of 2004 (B)

¶45

::3::

¶46

**_ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED_

¶47

R3: FASILA K.P., D/O.K.P.MOHAMMED, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MANJERI

¶48

** LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED A2 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DTD.5.11.2009 IN I.A.NO.3893/2009.

¶49

R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, CALICUT AIRPORT R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.PADMALAYAN

¶50

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

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

¶52

L.A.A No.347 Of 2004

¶53

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2014.

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

¶56

Claimants are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2003 in L.A.R.No.101/1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. An extent of 00.4790 hectares of land (1.18 acres) comprised in R.S.No.330/4 of Pallikkal Village was acquired by the Government for the expansion of the runway of the Calicut Airport. The acquired property is included in tak No.II category. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 15.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded 8,539/- per cent as land value. The claimants pointed out that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 130 metres from Kondotty-Tirurangadi road and 50 metres from Koottalingal-Mukkod road. It is also contended that the land is having commercial and industrial importance and so many educational, Government and other institutions are lying within the distance of 200 meters from the acquired land. According to the claimant the property will fetch 1

¶57

Lakh per cent at the time of acquisition. Parties are

¶58

hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the reference case.

¶59

::2::

¶60

L.A.A No.347 Of 2004

¶61

The reference case was tried along with L.A.R.No.75/1997 and judgment and decree was passed on

¶62

9.4.2001 fixing the land value at the rate of ` 12,000/- per cent. Requisitioning authority, namely, Airport Authority of India, Calicut, preferred L.A.A.No.673/2002. Finding that the requisitioning authority was not heard at the time of passing the decree, this court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded with a direction to implead the requisitioning authority. Subsequently, requisitioning authority was impleaded as additional 2^nd respondent.

¶63

Before disposal of the case on 9.4.2001, the claimant examined AW1 to AW3 and marked Ext.A1 on his side. RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the State. Ets.C1 and C2 were also marked. This Court in L.A.A.No.673/2002 directed the reference court to dispose of the reference case afresh after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce fresh evidence. It is submitted that after remand, RW1 was re-examined and Exts.A2 to A4 were marked.

¶64

The court below answered the reference by re-fixing the land value. Enhancement was granted to a very limited

¶65

::3::

¶66

L.A.A No.347 Of 2004

¶67

extent fixing the land value at the rate of ` 10,000/- per cent.

¶68

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, this appeal was preferred by the claimants.

¶69

We have noticed the common judgment passed by this Court in L.A.A.No.911/2003 and connected appeals. This Court considered the question of compensation in respect of all categories of lands under the same acquisition. The acquired property in the present case is included in tak No.II. This Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2009 disposed of several appeals including L.A.A.No.911/2003. The land value of properties included in tak No.II was fixed at 13,750/- per cent. This Court also found that in view of largeness of extent involved in some cases i.e., cases in which more than one acre of land was acquired, this Court deducted 7.5% from13,750/-. Thus, the market value fixed for tak No.II properties was ` 12,718.75/- per cent. In the light of the disposal of connected matters involving properties of like nature acquired under the very same notification, we are not called upon to consider the contentions of the appellant again. We adopt the land value fixed by the Division Bench in

¶70

::4::

¶71

L.A.A No.347 Of 2004

¶72

L.A.A.No.911/2003 and connected appeals. Taking into consideration the commercial and industrial importance and nearness to main road, we think that a slight modification is necessary in this case. We therefore, re-fix the land value at the rate of ` 13,000/- per cent. Slight modification is made taking into consideration the particular features of the acquired land and its potential value.

¶73

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is modified. The claimants are entitled to realise land value at the rate of `13,000/- per cent less the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to all eligible statutory benefits for the enhanced compensation as also ordered by the reference court.

¶74

HARUN-UL-RASHID,

¶75

bkn/-

K.P.Pathummunni v. the Dist.Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Pathummunni v. the Dist.Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.J.John Vs Mohammed Ali

P.a.Nishad Vs M.R.Saigal

Shibi Joju Vs M.Sundaran

Xaviour Vs State of Kerala

Sherin J.Thankom Vs Thankom & Others

Rajan.G Vs Leela