Allowed

The State of Kerala v. Molly Varghese

Kerala HC17 Jul 2018LA.App./31/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by State against enhancement of compensation in land acquisition. Court found insufficient evidence comparing acquired land with comparable land. Appeal allowed and matter remitted for redetermination of value after evidence is adduced.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; matter remitted to court below for fresh determination of land value after evidence is adduced.

The State of Kerala Vs Molly Varghese — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

LA.App..No. 31 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-07-2015 IN LAR NO.46/2012 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYAMJIRAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:

¶11

MOLLY VARGHESE CHALAYIL VEEDU, KAVAL JUNCTION, KAIKULANGARA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O. KOLLAM-691012.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶13

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶15

L.A.A.No.31 of 2017

¶16

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2018

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

State of Kerala is in appeal against the judgment of the Principal Sub Judge, Kollam in L.A.R.No.46 of 2012 contending that enhancement of the land value made by the court below was without any reliable evidence.

¶19

Heard the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.

¶20

An extent of 0.27 Ares of land comprised in re-survey No.3/79 in Kollam West Village in Kollam Taluk was acquired for widening a public road. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was published on 05.07.2010. Possession of land was taken on 07.06.2007. An award dated 05.06.2011 was passed determining the land value at 12,38,416/- per Are. Claimant was awarded a total compensation of 47,140/- including 30% solatium and 12% interest. A reference was made by the claimant alleging that the value determined was insufficient and no compensation was awarded for the structures in the property.

¶21

Claimant in his claim statement relied on various sale deeds to

¶22

show the actual market value prevailed at the time of acquisition. It is seen

¶23

¶24

LAA No.31 of 2017

¶25

from the impugned judgment that the claimant testified as AW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on his side. Ext.X1is the reference file.

¶26

Court below relying on Ext.X1 and considering various binding pronouncements determined the land value at `16,44,098/- per Are. The basis adopted for determining the land value is stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment. Paragraph 11 of the judgment is quoted below for clarity:

¶27

“So, the available document with the court is Ext.A1 only. Eventhough, Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd. (Supra) deprecated the practice of relying pre or post notification documents of more than 4-5 years, in the absence of such document, the court will have to rely upon Ext.A1. As the property is in urban area, the average cumulative enhancement can be up to 10%. As year 2010 is the year of 4(1) notification, the value enhanced in that year is to be excluded. The total land value as per Ext.A1 is ` 6,40,300/- per Are. Whereas, property in Ext.A1 is having frontage with National Highway. Whereas, acquired property in the present case is not having any road frontage with National Highway. So, a reduction

¶28

¶29

LAA No.31 of 2017

¶30

@ 10% from Ext.A1 land value can be taken as the land value of the property in the present case. So, the cumulative land value of 11 years is ` 16,44,098.31/-

¶31

per Are. Whereas, the land value awarded by LAO in the present case is ` 12,38,416/-.”

¶32

Learned Government Pleader contended that there is no

¶33

material available in the records to compare the lands under acquisition with the lands included in Ext.A1. Admittedly the land under acquisition was not abutting a public road. Ext.A1 land was abutting a public road. That is seen from the impugned judgment itself. However, no commission was taken out to locate the lands in question and to establish that the lands are similarly situate and would fetch the same value. How the court below entered the findings quoted above is not clear. In the absence of any reliable evidence to show the comparability of Ext.A1 land, the court below adopted a wrong yardstick for determining the land value of the acquired land. After considering the materials on record, I am of the view that the matter requires further consideration, by directing the parties to adduce evidence to establish the market value prevailed at the time of acquisition.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to consider

¶35

LAA No.31 of 2017 4

¶36

afresh, after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, the similarity of land under acquisition and the land included in Ext.A1 document. Thereafter the court below shall redetermine the land value in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the court below on 13.08.2018.

¶37

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

¶38

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶39

cks

The State of Kerala v. Molly Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Molly Varghese

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

Johnson Nadar @ Parameswaran Nadar Vs Vijayalekshmi

M.Sathyanarayanan Vs Ramankutty

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

Shereefa Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Haji Vs Muhammed Raffi

A.P. Raveendran Vs P.V. Cherian