Allowed

Saradamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2018LA.App./236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by a Sub Court for land acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court upheld the Commissioner's valuation, aligning it with rates previously determined for similar lands in the area, and denied interest for procedural delays.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to `17,297 per acre for dry land and `2,471 per acre for wet land based on earlier judicial determinations.

Saradamma Vs State of Kerala — 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 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

LA.App..No. 236 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-04-2005 IN LAR NO.78/2003 of

¶7

SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶8

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶9

1 SARADAMMA, KAKKAPARAMBIL, PALLIPPURAM.

¶10

2 PRADEEP, -DO-

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL THASILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIALGROWTHCENTRE, CHERTHALA.

¶14

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.I.D.C, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC

¶16

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.10.2018, ALONG WITH LA.App.NO.352/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

LAA Nos.236 of 2015 & 352 of 2017

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶22

FRIDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940

¶23

LA.App..No. 352 of 2017

¶24

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2005 IN LAR NO.48/2003 of

¶25

SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶26

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶27

1 THOMMY DEVASSIA, VELIPARAMBIL, PALLIPPURAM.

¶28

ANNAMMA DEVASSIA, -DO- 2

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN

¶30

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL THASILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIALGROWTHCENTRE, CHERTHALA.

¶32

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., TRIVANDRUM.

¶33

R1 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN R2 BY ADV.SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC

¶34

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.10.2018, ALONG WITH LA.APP.NO.236/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

LAA Nos.236 of 2015 & 352 of 2017

¶36

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

L.A.A. No.236 of 2015 is filed by the claimants challenging

¶39

the judgment of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala in L.A.R.No.78 of 2003. L.A.A.No.352 of 2017 is filed by the claimants against the judgment of the same court in L.A.R.No.48 of 2003. Since common questions arise in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed by this common judgment.

¶40

In L.A.A.No.236 of 2015, the total extent of land acquired was 11.33 Ares. It took in 3 Ares of dry land and 8.33 Ares of wet land. In L.A.A.No.352 of 2017, the total extent of land acquired was 3.84 Ares and it was a dry land. In both the cases, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “Act”) was issued on 24.01.1997. Possession of the properties were taken on 15.09.2000. Insofar as the dry land is concerned, the Collector awarded an amount of 7,876/- per Are and in respect of wet land, the compensation determined was 988/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants approached the Sub Court by a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court found no evidence adduced by the claimants and on a reconsideration of the materials, dismissed the plea for enhancement and the references were answered accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have approached this Court.

¶41

LAA Nos.236 of 2015 & 352 of 2017

¶42

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. Learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority is also heard.

¶44

Learned counsel for the claimants contended that considering the potentiality of lands, the properties under acquisition would have fetched a minimum price of `30,000/- per Are. Learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel for the requisitioning authority opposed this submission by contending that no material has been placed by the claimants to substantiate this contention.

¶45

Learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority relied on two judgments rendered by division benches of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.703 of 2006 and 651 of 2005, which are in relation to land acquisition through the same notification in respect of similar properties. The classification of lands involved in L.A.A.No.703 of 2006 is similar to those involved in L.A.A.No.236 of 2015. Similarly, the land involved in L.A.A.No.651 of 2005, which is a dry land, is also similar to the dry land involved in these appeals. It is seen from the judgments that in respect of properties similar and similarly situated, this Court has determined land value at the rate of 17,297/- per Are in respect of dry land and 2,471/- per Are in respect of wet land.

¶46

Having regard to the facts and circumstances borne out from the records and also from the submissions, I am satisfied that the land involved in these appeals should also be valued at the same rate,

¶47

LAA Nos.236 of 2015 & 352 of 2017

¶48

¶49

ie., 17,297/- per Are in respect of dry land and 2,471/- per Are in respect of wet land. Hence, the issues involved in these appeals are answered accordingly.

¶50

It is brought to my notice that even at the time of filing the appeals, this Court has clarified that the appellants will not be entitled to claim interest during the period of delayed filing of the appeals and also the delay in representation of the appeals. Hence, in L.A.A.No.236 of 2015, interest under Section 28 of the Act will not be granted for 97 days of filing delay and 1705 days of representation delay. Similarly in L.A.A.No.352 of 2017, interest under Section 28 of the Act will not be granted for 173 days of filing delay and 1592 days of representation delay. The appellants are entitled to get other statutory benefits.

¶51

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶52

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

¶53

A.HARIPRASAD

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

cks

Saradamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saradamma v. State of Kerala

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

Raveendran Vs Jayakumar

Aneez Adam Koyappathody Vs Anshad Nazim

Antony Gorden Mendez Vs K.T.D.C. Hotels and Resorts Ltd.

Parukutty Amma Vs Unnikrishnan.P.T.

K.Lakshman Lal Vs State of Kerala and Another

Karthika Vs Vijayalakshmi