Allowed

State of Kerala v. Raj Mohanan

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019LA.App./227/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging a land acquisition reference judgment that enhanced land values, the High Court applied the Full Bench decision in Sarada v Special Tahsildar. The court held that compensation cannot exceed the amount in the prior reference case, set aside the impugned judgment, and restored the Collector's earlier order under Section 28A(1).

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of the reference court setting the land value at Rs. 22,642/- per Are is set aside and the decision of the Collector under Section 28A(1) fixing value at Rs. 18,525/- per Are is

State of Kerala Vs Raj Mohanan — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

LA.App..No.227 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03-06-2016 IN LAR NO.52/2011 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

¶9

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K. SHAJAHAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶11

1 RAJ MOHANAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM-691601

¶12

2 VIJAYAMMA, INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM691601

¶13

3 PADMANABHA PILLAI, INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM691601

¶14

4 MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM691601

¶15

5 SUBHASH CHANDRAN, INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM691601

¶16

6 VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMAL INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM691601

¶17

7 GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, INCHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PAMPALIL, PANAYAM, KOLLAM691601

¶18

LA.App. No.227/2017

¶19

¶20

8 SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS) 695 011.

¶21

BY ADVS. R1 TO R7 SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶22

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

L.A.A.No.227 of 2017

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in L.A.R.No.52 of 2011 in the files of the Sub Court, Kollam.

¶26

2 . An extent of land measuring 8.00 Ares held by the claimants in the proceedings was acquired for the purpose of Railways, pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') on 07.07.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value for the acquired land at Rs.7,866/- per Are. The claimants accepted the compensation worked out by the Land Acquisition Officer on that basis without objection. Later, in terms of the judgment in L.A.R.No.85 of 1997, for another land acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the same land value, the reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.18,525/- per Are. The claimants, in the circumstances, sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28A(1) of the Act. The application preferred by the claimants in this regard was allowed and the land value was re-determined at Rs.18,525/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the said re-determination, the claimants sought reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act. When the matter came up before the reference

¶27

LA.App. No.227/2017

¶28

¶29

court, the claimants placed reliance on the decision of the reference court in L.A.R.No.82 of 1997, where for another land acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.8,581/- per Are, the reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.24,700/- per Are. In the light of the decision in LAR No.82 of 1997, the reference court enhanced the land value of the acquired land proportionately and fixed the same at Rs.22,642/per Are. The State is aggrieved by the said decision of the reference court. Hence this appeal.

¶30

3 . Heard the learned Government Pleader as also

¶31

the learned counsel for the claimants.

¶32

4. A Full Bench of this court in Sarada v Special Tahsildar [2016 (2) KLT 120] held in an identical case that the court deciding a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act cannot award compensation exceeding the amount awarded by the court in the reference case, on the basis of which the application for redetermination of compensation was preferred. In the light of the said decision, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶33

In the result, the land acquisition appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the reference court is set aside and the

¶34

LA.App. No.227/2017

¶35

¶36

decision of the Collector under Section 28A(1) of the Act is restored. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

State of Kerala v. Raj Mohanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Raj Mohanan

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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs P.a.John

Balakrishnan.Cm. Vs the Special Tahsildar,(La),Thalassery

Thayyilakandy Rathnakaran Vs the Special Tahsildar(La)

Jagadamma Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Sasikumar

State of Kerala Vs Geetha Vijayan