Allowed

State of Kerala, Rep.by the Spl. Tahsildar (La) (General) v. Peter

Kerala HC13 Jul 2018LA.App./178/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against a land acquisition reference judgment. The Court held that fair value under the Stamp Act does not determine market value for acquisition compensation. Due to lack of evidence on actual market value, the reference court order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh valuation.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Subordinate Judge in L.A.R.No.4 of 2011 set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination of market value.

State of Kerala, Rep.by the Spl. Tahsildar (La) (General) Vs… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

LA.App..No. 178 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 24-10-2013 IN LAR 4/2011 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA(GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶10

PWD ROADS DIVISION,

¶11

ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV.SYAMJI RAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:

¶14

PETER, S/O.THOMAS PAVVELIL, EZHUPUNNA MURI, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE 688548

¶15

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶17

L.A.A.No.178 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the State.

¶21

Challenge in this appeal is against the judgment passed in L.A.R.No.4 of 2011 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala, along with other land acquisition references. 0.26 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.386/4/4 and 0.10 Ares of property included in Survey No.386/19/5 of Ezhupunna Village, owned by the respondent, was acquired for a public purpose, by invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act). Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 16.12.2009. After hearing the affected parites, an award was passed on 3.9.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.40,733/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimant/respondent preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was placed before the Sub Court for consideration. The

¶22

¶23

LAA 178/2014

¶24

claimant, in his claim statement, contended that the property is situate in an important locality and it has potential value for tourism. Without considering the road frontage, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a meagre compensation. According to him, the property would fetch Rs.2 lakhs per cent. According to the State, the Land Acquisition Officer has considered all the relevant inputs and assessed the value correctly. However, the reference court, on the basis of Ext.A1 notification published under Rule 4 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995, enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,50,000/- per Are.

¶25

Learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.A1 notification cannot be taken as the basis for valuation. It is true Ext.A1 was published on 14.12.2009, that is before passing the award. But, it has to be seen that by virtue of Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, every Revenue Divisional Officer shall, subject to such Rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, fix the fair value of the lands situate within the area of his jurisdiction. It is specifically stated in the Section that the purpose of determining the fair value is to ascertain the duty

¶26

¶27

LAA 178/2014

¶28

chargeable at the time of registration of instruments involving lands. Rule 4 also deals with the procedure for determination of fair value. Actual market value may have no nexus with the fair value. Merely for the reason that under the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Rules, fair value has been determined in respect of a land, the land acquisition court cannot determine the rights of parties only basing its reasoning on the notification. I find no material produced by the claimant to establish that the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate or low.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and dearth of other material evidence, this Court constrained to set aside the judgment passed by the Sub Court, Cherthala and remand the matter for a fresh determination of actual market value of the land involved in the acquisition.

¶30

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment in L.A.R.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court for a fresh determination of market value of the land acquired, affording the parties an opportunity to produce

¶31

¶32

LAA 178/2014

¶33

documentary and oral evidence for substantiating their claims. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 6.8.2018.

¶34

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶35

Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶36

State of Kerala, Rep.by the Spl. Tahsildar (La) (General) v. Peter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala, Rep.by the Spl. Tahsildar (La) (General) v. Peter

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

Meenambalam Santhosh Vs Sunish S. Anand

Nishayi.M.P Vs M.Prabhu

Janardhanan Vs Sunil Dutt

Johnson Nadar @ Parameswaran Nadar Vs Vijayalekshmi

M.Sathyanarayanan Vs Ramankutty

Shereefa Beevi Vs State of Kerala