Partly allowed

M.K.Baby v. Dr.M.K.Moni

Kerala HC23 Feb 2015LA.App./1301/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Land Acquisition Appeal where the claimant contested the enhanced value award and eligibility for statutory benefits. The High Court followed a prior connected appeal dismissing the interference with the award but clarified the claimant's right to specific statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Appellant is entitled to 30% solatium, 12% additional market value, and interest under Section 28 for the awarded amount.

M.K.Baby Vs Dr.M.K.Moni — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/4TH PHALGUNA, 1936 LA.App..No. 1301 of 2005 ( ) -----------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 34/2003 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 21-08-2004

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT NO.2.:

¶7

M.K.BABY, D/O. LATE KUMARA PILLAI, 40/6604, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, M.G.ROAD COCHIN 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS 1, 3 TO 5 AND KUDIKIDAPPUKARS 1 TO 6 AND RESPONDENTS

¶9

DR.M.K.MONI, S/O. LATE KUMARA PILLAI, 40/6604 A, KUMARA KRIPA, KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI. 2. M.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE KUMARA PILLAI, HOUSE NO.40/6604A, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, M.G.ROAD KOCHI 682 035. 3. M.K.MOHANAKUMAR, D/O.LATE KUMARA PILLAI, HOUSE NO. 40/6604A, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, M.G.ROAD KOCHI 682 035. (name deleted and corrected) 4. M.K.SUDHALAKSHMI, D/O.LATE KUMARA PILLAI HOUSE NO.40/6604A, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, M.G.ROAD KOCHI 682 035. 5. SMT.KUNJIKKAVU, W/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHIL, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

SYLAJA, D/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHIL, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

SIVADAS, S/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHIL KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 8. RENUKA, D/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHIL, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

MAHESWARI, D/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHIL, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

GIRIJA, D/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHIL, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA KOCHI 682 020. (NAME OF R3 IS CORRECTED AS M.K. MOHANAKUMARI AS PER ORDER DT.23.11.12 IN IA 1512/2012.)

¶16

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R,R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAIJI ITTEN R11 BY SR.G.P. SHRI R. PADMARAJ R,R12 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-022015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V. ASHA, JJ.

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1301 of 2005

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2015

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶23

The appellant is claimant No.2 in LAR No.34/2003 of the IIIrd Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam. The reference was made under Section

¶24

18 as well as Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶25

The acquisition was for widening the entry into the eastern side of Ernakulam Junction Railway Station. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is dated 20.8.1999 and the property was taken possession of on 28.8.2002. A total amount of Rs.13,46,521/- was awarded as compensation including all statutory benefits. An amount of Rs.9,02,197/- was deposited in court as the title deed of the property

¶26

in Sy. No.569/1-2 of an extent of 2.19 ares of property was not produced.

¶27

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the view

¶28

LAA 1301/2005

¶29

¶30

taken by the court below that the claimants are not entitled for

¶31

enhanced land value as claimed, is not correct. It is submitted that the enhancement granted is adequate.

¶32

The evidence shows that apart from examining A.Ws.1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A7 have been marked. R.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined

¶33

on the side of the respondents and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked apart from Exts.C1 to C4.

¶34

We heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the GCDA. We also heard learned counsel appearing for one of the party respondents.

¶35

The reference court fixed the land value at Rs.1,62,500/- per are, by guess work, mainly, as no other comparable sale deeds were available. We find from the discussion by the trial court in the judgment that one of the documents produced is relating to the property on the side of M.G.Road which is in an important locality (Ext.A4). The other document discussed referring to the Notes to

¶36

LAA 1301/2005 3

¶37

Award, is in relation to a property on the side of Thripthi Lane which is 1 ½ kms. away. By reckoning the time lag with the date of execution of the said document, and Section 4(1) notification, 30% increase was adopted for fixing the land value. For the building in the property 45% increase was granted. For injurious affection, Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for GCDA submitted that in the connected appeal, viz. in LAA No.496/2006 this Court did not interfere with the land value and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment was placed before us and we respectfully follow the same.

¶39

In the light of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the award of the reference court. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the appellant has not been granted the statutory benefits. We have gone through the operative portion of the judgment. it is seen that general directions have been issued with regard to the same. But we make it further clear that the appellant will be entitled

¶40

LAA 1301/2005

¶41

¶42

for 30% solatium and 12% additional market value and interest under

¶43

Section 28 of the Act, for the amount awarded to him.

¶44

The appeal is dismissed subject to the above observations. The

¶45

parties will bear their costs in the appeal.

¶46

(T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

¶47

(P.V. ASHA, JUDGE.)

¶48

kav/

M.K.Baby v. Dr.M.K.Moni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Baby v. Dr.M.K.Moni

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.P.Antony Vs the Transport Officer, H.M.T. Ltd.

Mercy, W/O.Anchelos Vs State of Kerala

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ahammed P.R.(Minor)

Shihabudeen Vs Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Santha Vs Thankarajan

Maliyakkal Saithalavi Vs Unninarayanan