Allowed

Kidakkadan Chekkutty & Others v. the District Collector

Kerala HC15 Mar 2016LA.App./2251/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal allowing enhancement of compensation from Rs.10,079.78 per cent to Rs.13,000/- per cent, holding the previous assessment unjustified compared to precedent property values.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.13,000/- per cent; interest and solatium rates maintained; other aspects of award maintained; appellants entitled to statutory benefits.

Kidakkadan Chekkutty & Others Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶6

LA.App..No. 2251 of 2008 ( )

¶7

IN LAR 89/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI DATED 28-06-2005

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS :

¶9

1. KIDAKKADAN CHEKKUTTY S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. KIDAKKADAN ABDUL GAFOOR S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. KIDAKKADAN ABDUL NAZAR S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KUMMINIPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶14

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM.

¶15

2. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT AIRPORT, KARIPOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

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

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

C.T.RAVIKUMAR & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.

¶20

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008

¶21

Dated 15^th March, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Mary Joseph, J.

¶24

The challenge in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Sub Judge, Manjeri in L.A.R.No.89 of 2000.

¶25

The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-

¶26

An extent of 0.0360 hectares of land in R.S.No.71/29 of Pallikkal Village belonged to the appellants

¶27

had been acquired by the respondents for the purpose of widening of Kondotty - Thiroorangadi Diversion Road, BlockIII. A sum of Rs.85,616/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as total compensation. Out of the same, Rs.58,385.33/- was the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer as per award No.17/98 dated 11.9.1998.

¶28

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -2-

¶29

Dissatisfied with the sum awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation the claimants received the same under protest and that led to the reference of the same before the Sub Court, Manjeri as L.A.R.No.89 of 2000 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶30

The Reference Court as per the impugned judgment enhanced the land value at Rs.10,079.78 per cent and has also found that the appellants are entitled to 30% of the market value of solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the excess amount awarded by the court for a period of one year from 3.3.1997 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment or deposit of the amount. It is the said judgment that is taken up in challenge in this Land Acquisition Appeal.

¶31

The grievance projected by the appellants before this Court was that even though a detailed claim statement was filed by them before the court below incorporating therein various factors such as proximity of the land acquired from them towards National Highway, availability

¶32

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -3-

¶33

of various important institutions in and around of it and regarding the land value in the area, the court below, failed to appreciate those aspects in its proper perspective and failed to award just and reasonable compensation to them. According to them, the basic land taken by the acquisition officer has no features of comparison with the acquired land and thereby the latter has erred in computing the compensation relying upon the value shown in the deed of conveyance relating to that. It is contended by the appellants that the acquired land is situated in a prominent area of the city with all facilities whereas the basic land relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is situated in an area deeper than road level and it is in nature, a granite quarry not liable to any improvements. According to him the awarding officer is therefore highly unjustified in computing compensation for the acquired land on its basis. According to the appellants as per document No.1803/1994 of S.R.O. Malappuram placed by them for reliance before the Land Acquisition Officer, an extent of 74 ½ cents of land

¶34

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -4-

¶35

was sold by the Kondotty P.C.C. Society after accepting tenders and the value of land fixed therein was Rs.25,000.50 per cent. But, the acquisition officer went wrong in awarding Rs.5,250/- per cent as compensation for the acquired land and an addition only of 8% as the increase in land value for the gap of 16 months in publishing 4(1) notice and the date of award. It is contended by the appellants in the appeal memorandum that the Land Acquisition Officer is highly unjustified in awarding such a meagre sum as compensation without the evidence let in being appreciated in proper manner.

¶36

Lastly and finally it is contended by the appellants in the Appeal Memorandum that the court below has not given importance to the commission report filed by the Advocate Commissioner after inspecting the acquired properties, reporting in elaborate terms its importance as a fertile land with agricultural improvements and its noncomparability with the basic land by stating in specific terms about its nature as a quarry lying 30 feet lower than the

¶37

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -5-

¶38

road level.

¶39

Based on the contentions it is concluded by the appellants that the award of Rs.10,079/- per cent as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer is on the lower side and being the outcome of an improper appreciation of the evidence adduced by them will not sustain in law and needs to be interfered with and set aside.

¶40

Sri.Babu S.Nair addressed us representing the appellants in clear terms in tune with the contentions set forth hereinabove. Sri.K.K.Saidalavi addressed us on behalf of the State contending that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants are untenable and unsustainable as the court below has awarded adequate compensation, just and reasonable in every aspects.

¶41

It is contended by Sri.Babu S.Nair that the court below ought to have relied upon Ext.A1, as the proper document to base its computation of compensation in respect of the acquired property.

¶42

Per contra, Sri.K.K.Saidalavi, the learned

¶43

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -6-

¶44

Government Pleader contended that the apt document liable for reliance of the court below was Ext.B1 and that was based for computation of compensation and as such there is no scope for interference. Apart from raising the contentions as aforesaid Sri.Babu S.Nair invited our attention to judgments rendered by this Court, three in numbers.

¶45

The first judgment is passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.911 of 2003, which was an appeal arising from L.A.R.No.42/1998 of Sub Court, Manjeri. In the said case 4(1) notification was published on 15.11.1993. But, the Division Bench has considered Ext.A1, the very document which is now sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel in the case on hand. Based on Ext.A1 and other important aspects, the Division Bench arrived at the conclusion that the property under acquisition therein i.e., the land situated in Nediyiruppu, Pallikkal and Kondotty Villages of Malappuram District and acquired for the purpose of expansion of the run way of Calicut Airport was similar to

¶46

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -7-

¶47

the one comprised in Ext.A1, the Document bearing No.1803/1994 of S.R.O. Kondotty, and thus arrived at a compensation of Rs.20,250/- per cent.

¶48

The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.2415 of 2008, which came up in challenge of judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.6 of 2002 of Sub Court Manjeri, wherein the value of land included in 4(1) notification published on 10.2.1999 acquired for the purpose of construction of residential quarters for Calicut Air Customs was enhanced to Rs.25,350/- per cent. The Division Bench in the case had relied upon various documents bearing Nos.1317/96, 1461/96, 1544/96 and 1649/96 of S.R.O. Kondotty in the said land acquisition appeal to arrive at the enhanced compensation. It is pertinent to note that the properties acquired in the said case were situated very close to the Calicut Airport.

¶49

We were also taken by the learned counsel to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.2416 of 2008. The said

¶50

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -8-

¶51

appeal was also filed in challenge of the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.15 of 2002 of Sub Court, Manjeri. In the said appeal the Division Bench has relied upon the judgment in L.A.A.No.2415 of 2008, of which reference is made by us hereinabove. In the said case also the Court has re-fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.25,350/- per cent. In the case on hand, going by the impugned judgment, it is seen that the land is situated 300 mts. away from the Airport at the eastern side of KarippurKumminiparamba road. The court below had observed in the impugned judgment that Kumminiparamba angadi is situated only 500 metres away from Karippur angadi. The court below had also described in the impugned judgment that the road that lies at the western side of the acquired property abutting the said property had been used for the vehicular traffic by E.M.E.A.College, Health Centre, A.M.U.P.School etc. The court had observed that in the vicinity of the acquired land important institutions such as Mosque, Madrassa, saw-mills, flour mill, nursery schools,

¶52

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -9-

¶53

Anganwadi and Pooman Exports etc. are also situated. The court has also observed that several important buildings are also situated in and around the acquired land. The acquired land was also observed by the court below as having road frontage and fit for construction of shop buildings.

¶54

The basic land relied upon by the court below, in its view itself, is having no road frontage or road access and is full of granite quarry and no shop buildings, Angadi or other institutions having commercial importance are present therein. In view of the importance of the acquired land as described in the impugned judgment, we are of convinced that the said land is having comparison to the properties with reference to which the citied judgments are passed. But disparity is there with reference to the date of notification. In the judgment of L.A.A.No.911 of 2003 the notification is dated 15.11.1993 that is, four years prior to the date of notification in the case on hand. In the cited judgment of L.A.A.No.2415 of 2008, the notification is dated 10.2.1999, that is, two years after the publication of the

¶55

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008 -10-

¶56

notification relating to the property in question. In the said judgment the Division Bench has fixed the land value as Rs.25,350/-. Since the notification in L.A.A.No.2415/2008 is related to a date two years after the notification in the case on hand we are inclined to rely upon that in the appeal under consideration. It is pertinent to note from the judgment in L.A.A.No.911 of 2003 that, though the notification is dated prior to the date of notification in the case on hand, the document relied upon is Ext.A1 which is the document sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel in the case on hand. But the date of notification being different, we are declined to fix the compensation in tune with that awarded therein. Going by the Appeal Memorandum, the appellant has limited his claim for enhancement to Rs.13,000/- per cent. That being a reasonable sum, in view of the judgment cited for reliance, we are inclined to modify the award on its basis.

¶57

In the result, LAA is allowed. The compensation awarded by the court below by the impugned judgment is

¶58

L.A.A.No.2251 of 2008

¶59

-11-

¶60

modified by enhancing it from Rs.10,079.78 per cent to Rs.13,000/- per cent. The interest and solatium will be at the same rate and for the same period as awarded by the court below. The other aspects of the impugned award are maintained. The appellants are also entitled to all admissible statutory benefits. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶61

Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶62

Judge

¶63

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH Judge

¶64

¶65

/TRUE COPY/

¶66

PA TO JUDGE

Kidakkadan Chekkutty & Others v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kidakkadan Chekkutty & Others v. the District Collector

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

Jose Vellara Vs Union of India

B.H.Mammi,P.a.Holder of B.H.Haneefa Vs the State of Kerala,Rep;by Spl.Tahsildar

Sajeevan Vs Simon

Mary Vs K.Karunakaran

Mary Francis Vs C.Gnanasekaran and Others

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Antony