Partly allowed

Marykutty Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014LA.App./82/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed part of an appeal against a land reference court decision. It held that the appellant's contiguous land should be considered to determine if the acquired property should be re-categorised, remanding the case for fresh evidence and consideration.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree under appeal set aside; case remanded for fresh consideration and evidence; fee refunded.

Marykutty Joseph Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶6

LA.App..No. 82 of 2012 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 15/2004 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 31-102008

¶8

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶9

MARYKUTTY JOSEPH

¶10

VATHAPPALLIL, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA P.O., PIN-688524.

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHAEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

L.A.A.No. 82 of 2012

¶20

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JUNE, 2014

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶23

Claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.15/04 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The extent of property acquired is 34.60 Ares. The property was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Growth Centre at Pallippuram. Section 4(1) notification was published on 24.1.1997. Out of the 34.60 Ares, 34.08 Ares is dry land and 0.52 Ares is wet land. Several other properties were also acquired for the very same purpose. The properties are categorised as Category Nos.1, 2, 3, etc. The acquired property is categorised as Category No.3. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value @ Rs.7,876/- per Are for dry land and Rs.988/- per Are for wet land. The reference court refixed land value for the dry land @ Rs.17297/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of land value awarded, the 1^st respondent has preferred the appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the reference case.

¶24

L.A..A.No.82/12

¶25

-2-

¶26

The claimant is owning another parcel of land having an extent of 54.60 Ares. The said property is lying adjacent to MLA Road. The said property is categorised as Category No.1. The acquired property is lying behind this property. The property facing the Panchayat Road is categorised as Category No.2 and properties having no road access is categorised as Category No.1. It is contended that the categorisation of the acquired property as Category No.3 is not justifiable. According to the claimant, even if clubbing method is adopted, the property has to be categorised as Category No.2, since the property is lying adjacent to 54.60 Ares of land owned by her. While AW1 was examined on the side of the claimant, he testified before the court that another man's property is lying in between the acquired property and the property owned by the claimant. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct and no interference is called for.

¶27

The Commissioner reported that the acquired property is lying contiguous to the 54.60 Ares of land owned by the

¶28

L.A..A.No.82/12 -3-

¶29

claimant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be given to the claimant to adduce evidence in support of her plea that her property is lying contiguous to the 1^st category property. If both properties are lying as a single plot, taking into account the importance of the 1^st category property, this property can be categorised as category No.2.

¶30

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal is set aside. The case is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence in support of their respective contentions. The court below shall dispose of the matter within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the court below on 02.07.2014. The court fee paid shall be refunded to the appellant. No order as to costs.

¶31

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID , JUDGE

¶32

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶33

dsn

Marykutty Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marykutty Joseph v. the State of Kerala

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

Nalini Vs State of Kerala

Kunju Beepathu Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Joseph Vs T.v.Ouseph

State of Kerala Vs Sindhu K.G.

Elsy Joseph and Others Vs Liji Joseph and Others

Unnikrishnan Namboothiri Vs Abdulgafoor