Allowed

Vembiriyan Madhavi v. the District Collector, Kannur

Kerala HC24 Jun 2019LA.App./613/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a land acquisition appeal, the High Court allowed partial success to claimants of 32 acres acquired for Naval Academy. Court held that unrevised land portions entitled to enhanced value based on reference court rates. Appeal allowed in part granting additional compensation, refusing interest for delay due to earlier order. Decree subject to payment of balance court fee.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced land value granted at rate of Rs.890 per Are for 26.69 Ares. Claimants entitled to statutory benefits. Interest for 1477 days delay denied.

Vembiriyan Madhavi Vs the District Collector, Kannur — 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

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

LA.App..No.613 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 139/2009 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 26-02-2011

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 VEMBIRIYAN MADHAVI RESIDING AT PARUTHIKKAD, KANNARU, PALAKKODE P.O., RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 VEMBIRIYAN SATHEESSAN RESIDING AT PARUTHIKKAD, KUNNARU, PALAKKODE P.O., RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 VEMBIRIYAN PREMALATHA W/O KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PARUTHIKKAD, KUNNARU,KANNARU, PALAKKODE P.O., RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4 VEMBIRIYAN SULABHA, W/O RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PARUTHIKKAD, KUNNARU, PALAKKODE P.O., RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR PIN - 670 001.

¶15

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION) EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670307.

¶16

BY ADV.

¶17

SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

LA.App..No.613 of 2015

¶20

¶21

L.A.A No.613 of 2015

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in L.A.R No.139 of 2009 on the files of the Sub Court, Payyannur.

¶24

32 Ares of land held by the claimants in the proceedings was acquired for the Naval Academy at Ezhimala. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,152/per Are for 5.31 Ares out of the acquired land and Rs.2,182/- per Are for the remaining 26.69 Ares, based on capitalization method of the yield from the fruit bearing trees in the said portion of the land. The claimants accepted the land value fixation made by the Land Acquisition Officer and received the compensation worked out on that basis. Later, in respect of another land acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.1,389.93 per Are in terms of the judgment in L.A.R No.98 of 1992, the reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.3,706.5 per Are. The claimants then preferred an application for re-determination of the compensation payable to them under Section 28A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). The application preferred by the claimants in this connection was rejected

¶25

¶26

LA.App..No.613 of 2015

¶27

by the Collector, holding that the lands are not comparable. The claimants then sought a reference for adjudication under Section 28A(3) of the Act and the matter was accordingly referred for adjudication. The reference court redetermined the compensation as claimed for 5.31 Ares of land alone. According to the claimants, the compensation granted to them in respect of the entire land should have been redetermined on that basis and hence this appeal.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

It is seen that the reference court has not redetermined the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of 26.69 Ares of land as the compensation in respect of the said extent of land was initially determined by the Land Acquisition Officer applying the capitalisation method. It is now trite that if compensation payable in terms of the judgment in the reference case, on the basis of which re-determination of compensation was sought, is more than the compensation determined applying the capitalisation method, the claimants would be entitled to get the compensation redetermined on the basis of the decision of the reference court. If that be so, the claimants are entitled to enhanced land value based on the decision of the reference court in the same proportion for 26.69 Ares of land as well which would come to Rs.3,072/- per Are. Since the claimants have

¶30

¶31

LA.App..No.613 of 2015

¶32

been granted compensation for the said extent of land on capitalisation method at the rate of Rs.2,182/- per Are, they are entitled to enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.890/- per Are for 26.69 Ares.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment is modified granting to the claimants enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.890/- per Are for 26.69 Ares of land for which compensation has been originally granted to them on capitalisation method. The claimants are also entitled to admissible statutory benefits on that basis. It is, however, made clear that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 1477 days in filing the appeal, as ordered by this court on 23.10.2018 in C.M.Application No.630 of 2015. It is also made clear that the appellants will be entitled to a decree in terms of this judgement only on payment of the balance court fee. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

Vembiriyan Madhavi v. the District Collector, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vembiriyan Madhavi v. the District Collector, Kannur

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

Jagadamma Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Sasikumar

State of Kerala Vs Raj Mohanan

Joseph, Vs the Divisional Manager

Sathasivam Vs Usha Nandhini

State of Kerala Vs a.Sahida Beevi