Partly allowed

The State of Kerala v. Santhakumar Amma

Kerala HC16 Nov 2021LA.App./266/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a decision enhancing land value for a land acquisition reference. The High Court held the enhanced value to be excessive and refixed it based on a previous lower bench judgment. The appeal was partly allowed to adjust the land value and statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

The enhanced land value fixed by the Reference Court was refixed at Rs.1,32,865/- per Are instead of Rs.7.5 Lakh, and the parties bear their respective costs.

The State of Kerala Vs Santhakumar Amma — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

LA.APP. NO. 266 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 194/2000 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV K.G.SAROJINI,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS & SECOND RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶13

1 SANTHAKUMARI AMMA

¶14

D/O.PANKAJAKSHY AMMA, T.C.31/1781, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008

¶15

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024

¶16

BY ADV SRI.D.GANESH KUMAR -R1

¶17

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

C.S.DIAS, J.

======================

¶22

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶23

======================

¶24

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2021.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in LAR No.194/2000 of the Court of the IInd Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, (Reference Court), the first respondent ‒ State of Kerala ‒ is in appeal. The respondents in the appeal were the claimant and second respondent before Reference Court.

¶27

An extent of 02.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.425/8 of Pettah Village in

¶28

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, belonging to the first respondent, was acquired by the appellant ‒ on the requisition made by the second respondent ‒ for the construction of the New International Passenger Terminal at Chackai. The Section 4 (1) notification

¶29

¶30

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶31

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'Act') was published on 11.12.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16.05.2000, fixing the land value of the first respondent’s property @ Rs.5,66,613/- for the payment of compensation.

¶32

Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the first respondent received the compensation amount under protest and filed a reference application under Sec.18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer paid the compensation amount to the first respondent, except for an amount of Rs.82,341/i.e., the compensation in respect of 0.09 Ares of property, which was deposited before the Reference Court on the ground that the first respondent had not proved her title over the said portion of property.

¶33

The first respondent had filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the Land Acquisition Officer had erroneously withheld an amount

¶34

¶35

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶36

of Rs.82,341/- because she was in possession of 0.09 Ares of property and land value fixed was nominal, and the land would have fetched Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. Hence the first respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation for her property.

¶37

The second respondent had filed a written statement contending that the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair and reasonable and the claimant is not entitled for any enhancement.

¶38

The property lying adjacent to the first respondent’s property was also acquired under the same notification. The said landowners filed a reference application which was numbered as LAR 193/2000.

¶39

The Reference Court consolidated and jointly tried the two reference applications. The first respondent’s husband was examined as AW1 and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked through him in evidence. The respondents produced and marked

¶40

¶41

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶42

Exhibits R1 to R4 in evidence. The Expert Commission report and detailed estimate of the building were marked as Exhibits C1 and C1(a), respectively.

¶43

The Reference Court, by its common judgment and decree, allowed the captioned reference application by holding that the first respondent is entitled to an enhanced land value of Rs.14,08,496/- with interest, solatium and cost.

¶44

Heard; Smt.K.G Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/first respondent and Sri.D.Ganesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant.

¶45

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhanced land value fixed by the Reference Court is sustainable in law or not?

¶46

The sheet anchor of the first respondent before the Reference Court was that, she is entitled to get her land value fixed at par with the adjacent landowner ‒

¶47

¶48

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶49

the claimant in LAR No.371/2007 ‒ wherein the Reference Court had granted an enhancement of Rs.15,00,000/- per Are. As both lands fall within the same category, the first respondent is entitled to the same value.

¶50

The Reference Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that property of the first respondent is a wet land converted to dry land with no road access, as evidenced by Exhibits R1 to R4. Therefore, the property cannot be included in Category 1. Accordingly, the Reference Court fixed the enhanced land value at Rs.15,37,500/- (Rs.7,50,000 x 2.05 Ares). The Reference Court also found that the first respondent was in possession of 0.09 Ares of property and, therefore, she was entitled to the entire compensation amount.

¶51

The learned Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the judgment dated

¶52

¶53

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶54

08.12.2009 in LAA 1872/2008, arising out of the judgment and decree in LAR 371/2007, which was strongly relied on by the first respondent before the Reference Court to get enhanced compensation.

¶55

A Division Bench of this Court, after reappreciating the pleadings and materials on record allowed LAA 1872/2008 filed by the State, holding that the enhanced land value fixed by the Reference Court was excessive. Accordingly, the enhanced land value in the above reference application was reduced and refixed at Rs.1,32,865/- per Are from Rs.15,00,000/i.e., an amount of Rs.53,769/- per cent. Hence, the learned Government Pleader contended that the enhanced land value of property of the first respondent has to be scaled down and re-fixed lower than what is fixed in LAA No.1872/2008, in view of the finding of the Reference Court that the first respondent’s property cannot be equated with the property in LAR

¶56

¶57

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶58

No.371/2007 as it does not fall within Category 1 and

¶59

has no road access.

¶60

The above contention of the learned

¶61

Government Pleader is not seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the first respondent, who only submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration, to afford the first respondent an opportunity to let in additional evidence and substantiate that the property in question falls in Category 1.

¶62

On a comprehensive re-appreciation of the pleading and materials on record, particularly taking note of the judgment in LAA No.1872/2008, I am convinced that the enhanced land value fixed by the Reference Court is excessive. Taking into consideration the distance of time, I hold that the same land value in LAA 1872/2008 can be adopted and fixed as the enhanced land value of the first respondent that is

¶63

¶64

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶65

Rs.1,32,865/- per Are instead Rs.15,00,000/-. As the first respondent had sought enhanced land value at par with the property covered by the above judgment, on the assertion that her property is similarly situated, I hold that the first respondent is only entitled to get the land value of her property refixed at Rs.1,32,865/- per Are instead of Rs.7.5 Lakh per Are fixed by the Reference Court, but with all consequential statutory benefits.

¶66

In view of the mandate under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and considering the fact that the reference application is of the year 2000 and the matter has been finally decided by this Court in LAA No.1872/2008, I do not find any cogent ground to remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration.

¶67

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by setting aside the judgment and decree in LAR

¶68

¶69

L.A.A No.266 of 2019

¶70

No.194/2000 of the Reference Court, and by refixing the enhanced land value of the first respondent’s property at Rs.1,32,865/- per Are for 02.05 Ares. The first respondent shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23 (2), 23 (1A) and 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation payable as per this judgment. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶71

SD/-

¶72

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶73

SKS/16.11.2021

The State of Kerala v. Santhakumar Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Santhakumar Amma

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

Aswathy P. Vs a.Shajahan

V.Shahul Hameed Vs K.Ganesan and Others

Punnyaseelan @ Pushpalal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Saju, Vs the Manager

K.Ashraf Vs Basheer.M

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sivadasan and Others