Allowed

K.Omana v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022LA.App./124/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This batch of land acquisition appeals involved appellants claiming higher compensation for wetland plots. The High Court classified the lands under Category IV(b) (wetlands with mud/gravel access) and enhanced compensation, rejecting the argument that a fresh survey was needed due to land development by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation classified under Category IV(b) at Rs.3,43,276/- per are; consequential statutory benefits and costs granted.

K.Omana Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA,

¶7

1944

¶8

LA.APP. NO. 124 OF 2021

¶9

JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR 59/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR

¶10

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT NO.1:

¶11

K.OMANA,

¶12

ERAVELIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO 19/2187 A, NAMBYARPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI 682006

¶13

BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON SMT.ROSE MICHAEL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682030

¶16

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANADU, PIN 682030

¶17

BY ADVS.

¶18

K.A.ABDUL SALAM - R2 SUNIL V.MOHAMMED - R2 SRI.JACOB P. SIMON, GOVERNMENT PLEADER - R1

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶21

..2..

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶27

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA,

¶28

1944

¶29

LA.APP. NO. 196 OF 2021

¶30

JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR 97/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR

¶31

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT NO.3:

¶32

TRUPTHA MURALEEDHARAN, D/O.MURALEEDHARAN, ERAVELIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.19/2187 A, NAMBYARPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006.

¶33

BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON

¶34

ROSE MICHAEL

¶35

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶37

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANADU, PIN - 682 030.

¶38

BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC, INFOPARK - R2 SUNIL V.MOHAMMED GP – SRI.JACOB P. SIMON - R1

¶39

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶41

..3..

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶43

PRESENT

¶44

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶45

¶46

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶47

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA,

¶48

1944

¶49

LA.APP. NO. 206 OF 2021

¶50

JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.20019 IN LAR 67/2011 OF SUB COURT,

¶51

PERUMBAVOOR

¶52

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT NO.1 IN LAR 67/2011:

¶53

K.OMANA, AGED 62 YEARS, ERAVELIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.19/2187 A, NAMBYARPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006.

¶54

BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON ROSE MICHAEL

¶55

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR 67/2011:

¶56

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶57

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANADU, PIN - 682 030.

¶58

BY ADVS. K.A.ABDUL SALAM - R2 SUNIL V.MOHAMMED - R2

¶59

GP – SRI.JACOB P. SIMON - R1

¶60

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶62

..4..

¶63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶66

¶67

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶68

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA,

¶69

1944

¶70

LA.APP. NO. 142 OF 2021

¶71

JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR 65/2011 OF SUB COURT,

¶72

PERUMBAVOOR

¶73

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶74

TRUPTHA MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS D/O. MURALEEDHARAN, ERAVELIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 19/2187 A, NAMBYARPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006.

¶75

BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON

¶76

ROSE MICHAEL

¶77

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶78

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.

¶79

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANADU, PIN - 682030.

¶80

BY ADVS. K.A.ABDUL SALAM - R2 SUNIL V.MOHAMMED - R2 K.A.THANU MOL - R2 GP – SRI.JACOB P. SIMON - R1

¶81

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶82

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶83

..5..

¶84

LAA Nos. 124, 142, 196 & 206 of 2021

¶85

JUDGMENT

¶86

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶87

These appeals arise from a common judgment in land acquisition references on the file of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor.

¶88

We need not dwell much into the claim for

¶89

enhancement inasmuch as in respect of the same acquisition, this Court, in LAA No.664/2014 and a batch of connected cases, by judgment dated 27.02.2018, categorized various types of lands and fixed land value for each category. The category of lands, as fixed by this Court

¶90

in the above judgment, is as follows;

¶91

Category I(a) Dry land (garden land) with access to tar road

¶92

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶93

	..6..
Category I(b)	Dry land (garden land) with access to mud/gravel road
Category I(c)	Dry land (garden land) having no road access
Category II(a)	Reclaimed land (filled up land) having access to tar road
Category II(b)	Reclaimed land (filled up land) having access to mud/gravel road
Category II(c)	Reclaimed land (filled up land) having no road access
Category III(a)	Wet land with coconut on bunds having access to tar road
Category III(b)	Wet land with coconut on bunds having access to mud/gravel road
Category III(c)	Wet land with coconut on bunds having no road access
Category IV(a)	Wetland having access to tar road
Category IV(b)	Wet land having access to mud/gravel road
Category IV(c)	Wet land having no road access

¶94

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶95

..7..

¶96

The land value fixed for each category is

¶97

found in the said judgment as follows;

¶98

Category I(a)	Rs.7,06,745/- per Are (-30% from 10,09,636/-)
Category I(b)	Rs.6,00,733/- per Are (-15% from 7,06,745/-)
Category I(c)	Rs.4,24,047/- per Are (-40% from 7,06,745/-)
Category II(a)	Rs.6,05,782/- per Are (-40% from 10,09,636/-)
Category II(b)	Rs.5,14,915/- per Are (-15% from 6,05,782/-)
Category II(c)	Rs.3,63,469/- per Are (-40% from 6,05,782/-)
Category III(a)	Rs.5,04,818/- per Are (-50% from 10,09,636/-)
Category III(b)	Rs.4,29,095/- per Are (-15% from 5,04,818/-)
Category III(c)	Rs.3,02,891/- per Are (-40% from 5,04,818/-)
Category IV(a)	Rs.4,03,854/- per Are (-60% from 10,09,636/-)
Category IV(b)	Rs.3,43,276/- per Are (-15% from 4,03,854/-)
Category IV(c)	Rs.2,42,312/- per Are (-40% from 4,03,854/-)

¶99

Now, the lands acquired from the appellants in these appeals are classified under Category

¶100

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶101

..8..

¶102

category of their lands should be IV(b).

¶103

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants,

¶104

the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the INFOPARK.

¶105

The land in each case is a small parcel of land purchased from a real estator, viz., Suryanelli Planters. They purchased a large extent of land and sold as small plots to various buyers. Admittedly, these lands have been identified as wetlands. There cannot be any quarrel in regard to the nature of land at distance of time.

¶106

The point to be considered is as to whether the lands of the appellants had road access or not. It is to be noted that in Ext.A4, one of the title deeds, it is specifically stated that road is on west and north. We cannot assume that small plots purchased from the real estator are without any access. The lands

¶107

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶108

involved in these cases altogether are of

¶109

nearly 15 cents. There is no dispute to the

¶110

fact that each of the appellants purchased the lands separately from the real estator.

¶111

The learned Standing Counsel as well as the

¶112

learned Government Pleader submitted that the appellants had to take out a commission to prove their claim that the plots are having road access.

¶113

It is to be noted that after taking possession of the land by the INFOPARK, they developed it before the proceedings in the matter are concluded by the Sub Court, Perumbavoor, and the claimants are not in a position to take out commission to prove that each of the plots is having separate access, for the reason that now the entire acquired land remains as single developed estate.

¶114

10.As we already noted, each of these appellants purchased small plots from the real estator

¶115

LA.APP. NO. 124/2021 & con. cases

¶116

..10..

¶117

and it cannot be believed that they purchased

¶118

such plots without any access. We are, in such circumstances, of the view that the appeal has to be allowed, classifying their land under

¶119

Category IV(b) and entitling them for a compensation fixed in accordance with the judgment dated 27.02.2018 for such land in LAA No.664/2014, i.e., Rs.3,43,276/- per are. The

¶120

appellants would also be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits including costs in these appeals.

¶121

The appeals are ordered accordingly.

¶122

Sd/-

¶123

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶124

JUDGE

¶125

Sd/-

¶126

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶127

JUDGE

¶128

bka/-

K.Omana v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Omana v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raveendran Vs Indian Pentecostal Church of God

P.K.C Fruits Vs Shihabudheen

Musthafa Vs Abdul Majeed

Truptha Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

K.Omana Vs State of Kerala

Truptha Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala