Dismissed

State of Kerala v. K.J.Kurian

Kerala HC26 Jul 2018LA.App./247/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two land acquisition appeals, the High Court dismissed challenges by the State against an enhanced compensation award granted by the Land Acquisition Referee Court. The Court held that the State failed to adduce evidence or produce material to rebut the claimants' evidence regarding land and building values.

What did the court decide?

None; Land Acquisition appeals dismissed maintaining the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below.

State of Kerala Vs K.J.Kurian — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

LA.App..No. 247 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 09-04-2012 IN LAR 70/2006 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT IN LAR

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADV.SYAMJIRAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶10

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN LAR:

¶11

1. K.J.KURIAN S/O JOHN, KULANGARA HOUSE, KADATHY KARA, MARKET P.O, MUVATUPUZHA 686661

¶12

2. ADV. JOHNY NELLOOR (MLA), S/O VARKEY, NELLOOR HOUSE, KERALA CONGRESS (JACOB) OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA 686661

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.THOMAS ADHIKARAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNIL R1 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2018, ALONG WITH LAA 416/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶16

L.A.A.No.247 of 2013 &

¶17

L.A.A.No.416 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2018

¶19

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶20

These appeals at the instance of the State are filed aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Muvattupuzha in LAR No.70 of 2006 and L.A.R.No.68 of 2006.

¶21

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents.

¶22

In both these cases, lands were acquired for the purpose of widening Thodupuzha - Muvattupuzha road by KSTP. Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was on 31.01.2003. Award was passed on 24.12.2003 and possession was taken on 31.12.2004. As per the award, the land acquisition officer granted a compensation of Rs.1 lakh per Are.

¶23

¶24

LAA 247/2013 & 416/2015

¶25

Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants sought a reference to the court below. Thereafter, the court below disposed of the matters. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant in L.A.R.No.70 of 2006 preferred an appeal before this Court has L.A.A.No.942 of 2009. By judgment dated 13.12.2011, this Court directed the reference court to reconsider the compensation on the basis of documents available on record. Grievance of the appellants before this Court was that Exts.A1 and A2 documents produced on the side of the claimants were not considered by the court below properly.

¶26

After considering the materials on record, the court below determined the land value at the rate of Rs.32,22,200/per Are. The claimant in L.A.R.No.70 of 2006 was found to be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,08,884/- and after deducting the amount already paid, the compensation payable was determined as Rs.6,86,884/-.

¶27

The court below found that the claimants in L.A.R.No.68 of 2006 are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.29,97,312/- as enhanced land value.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader strongly contended that

¶29

¶30

LAA 247/2013 & 416/2015

¶31

award passed by the court below does not reflect the real market value. According to him, the property situate in Muvattupuzha has been valued at higher rate than the prevailing rate in Kochi city at the relevant time. It is also contended on the basis of minutes of the meeting chaired by the District Collector, Ernakulam, along with other officials and the claimants, that the claimants have agreed to accept compensation at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs for category-1 and Rs.1.25 lakhs for category-2 depending on the nature of land. It is also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.A3 judgment produced by the claimant themselves in respect

¶32

of the lands acquired under the same notification was not considered by the court below where compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs per Are. Yet another contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that in Exts.A1 and A2 buildings were standing at the time of sale and what exactly is the area of the building, and what was the value of building at the time of purchase was not proved by any reliable evidence. It is also contended that no expert was examined to show that Rs.250/- per square feet was the proper value of the building

¶33

¶34

LAA 247/2013 & 416/2015

¶35

involved in Exts.A1 and A2 at the time of purchase.

¶36

In answer to this contention, learned counsel for the claimants contended that AW3, who is the President of Muvattupuzha Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, which entity purchased the property through Exts.A1 and A2, testified that the building included in one document was having 150 square feet and that in the another document was 140 square feet, totaling to 290 square feet. So, according to his testimony, value fixed for the building at the time of purchase by the Cooperative Bank was Rs.250/- per square feet. In spite of testifying this aspect by AW3, no cross examination was done on his testimony regarding value of the building. It appears that there is no challenge against the testimony of AW3. Value of the building involved in Exts.A1 and A2 is crucial aspect since the purchase was a land with a building.

¶37

No evidence was adduced on the side of the appellants to rebut the testimony of AW1 and AW3.

¶38

AW2 is the Commissioner, who visited the property and reported about potentiality of the lands acquired. According to his report and testimony, the land is situated in a busy

¶39

¶40

LAA 247/2013 & 416/2015

¶41

junction in Muvuttupuzha. In fact, the acquisition was made for widening Muvattupuzha - Thodupuzha road junction. Report would show that the acquired land is situate in the heart of town. Exts.A1 and A2 properties are also very close to the acquired land. Exts.A1 and A2 sales were in the year 2000 whereas the notification in this case was on 4.1.2003.

¶42

The court below, based on the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, arrived at the value at Rs.13,04,100/per cent. The equivalent value per Are is Rs.32,22,200/-.

¶43

Even though the learned Government Pleader strongly contended that estimation made by the court below is incorrect, I find no reason to agree with the submission, in the absence of any material on record made available by the appellant State. Not only that no evidence was adduced, but also no material was produced to show what should have been the actual value of the building involved in Exts.A1 and A2. That apart, the award passed by the land acquisition officer also does not clearly show as to the value of the building included in the acquired property so that a calculation could have been made in respect of the value of buildings in Exts.A1 and A2.

¶44

¶45

LAA 247/2013 & 416/2015

¶46

Having regard to the materials on record and submissions at the Bar, I find no merit in the appeals. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.

¶47

SD/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶48

State of Kerala v. K.J.Kurian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. K.J.Kurian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.J.Cherry Babu Vs S.Shahjahan

V N Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs M K Radhakrishnan

Rajapalayam Cement & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Augustin Joseph

N.Parameswara Pillai Vs K.M.Satheendranath

Ibrayin, S/O.Mundekattil Abdu Vs Thithummu, D/O.Karimbanakkal Pathukutty

Parakool Mujeebrahman Vs Matampottayil Aabida