Dismissed

T.M.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2024CO/143/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This land acquisition appeal challenged the enhancement of land value by a reference court from Rs.2,57,143/- to Rs.6,75,000/- per are. A claimant also sought further enhancement to Rs.10,00,000/-. The High Court rejected the State's appeal, holding the reference court's enhanced valuation justified based on commercial locality evidence, and dismissed the claimant's cross objection as well.

What did the court decide?

The land acquisition appeal filed by the State was dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondent-claimant was also dismissed. The enhancement of land value was upheld.

T.M.Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶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 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA,

¶7

1945

¶8

LA.APP. NO. 164 OF 2016

¶9

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2014 IN LAR 49/2013 OF

¶10

PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶11

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM

¶13

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION (NH) CHANGANASSERRY

¶14

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT PROJECT MUVATTUPUZHA

¶15

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

¶17

T.M.VARGHESE

¶18

S/O.MATHEW, THIRUTHANATHIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 689 620

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY SRI.MATHEW JOHN K

¶20

THIS LAND ACQUISTION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18.01.2024 ALONG WITH CO.143/2016, THE COURT ON 22.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

LAA No.164/2016

¶22

..2..

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶28

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA,

¶29

1945

¶30

CO NO. 143 OF 2016

¶31

LA.App. 164/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶32

LAR 49/2013 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶33

CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT:

¶34

T.M.VARGHESE

¶35

S/O. MATHEW,THIRUTHANATHIL, KIZAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 689 620.

¶36

BY ADV SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J. VATTAKUZHY

¶37

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:

¶38

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶39

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION[NH], CHANGANASSERY.

¶40

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶41

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN

¶42

THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18.01.2024 ALONG WITH LA.App..164/2016, THE COURT ON 22.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..3..

LAA No.164/2016

JUDGMENT

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

¶47

This land acquisition appeal has been filed by the State challenging the enhancement on land value on reference, by judgment and decree dated 30.08.2014 in LAR No.49 of 2013 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. A cross objection in the land acquisition appeal has also been filed by the respondent/claimant.

¶48

An extent of 0.0134 hectors of land comprised in Sy.No.190/1-1 of Ettumanoor Village was acquired for upgradation of the Moovattupuzha-Ettumanoor-Chengannoor State Highway. The date of Section 4(1) notification is 28.02.2011. As per award dated 16.03.2013, the Land Acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs.2,57,143/- per are, including in “A category”. On reference, the land value of Rs.2,57,143/- per are fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced to Rs.6,75,000/- per are, which resulted in the State approaching this Court in appeal.

¶49

According to the respondent/claimant, the acquired property is situated on the eastern side of the MC Road with

¶50

..4..

¶51

LAA No.164/2016

¶52

road frontage and the said acquired property forms part of the property purchased by him on the side of the road. A multi storeyed building was constructed in the entire property and the acquired property was set apart for parking of the vehicles and for convenient enjoyment of the building. It was the case of the respondent/claimant that the area, where the property is situated, is a fast developing commercial area and the property is a prime location. Pointing out that the Ettumanoor KSRTC bus stand, private bus stand, railway station, industrial estate, Ettumanoor Mahadeva Temple, Athirampuzha Church, MG University, Kottayam Medical College Hospital, Dental College, Nursing College, Matha Hospital, Carithas Hospital, KC College etc. and other government offices are situated near to the acquired property, the respondent/claimant claimed for enhancement on land value to Rs.10,00,000/- per cent.

¶53

The contention of the State is that it was after considering the importance of the locality and on the basis of the basic land documents, which are more suitable for fixing the land value, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.2,57,143/- per are, and hence, the claimant is not entitled to any enhancement on land value.

¶54

LAA No.164/2016

¶55

..5..

¶56

Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.

¶57

The evidence in this case consisted of oral evidence of AWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the respondent/claimant; and Exts.R1 to R3 on the side of the appellant/State. Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as court exhibits. The reference court relied on Exts.C1 report and C1(a) rough sketch filed by the Commissioner, wherein it is reported that the acquired property is situated in a commercial locality and that there are a lot of commercial buildings, other shopping complexes, a petrol pump, business establishments etc. near to it, whereas, there were no such commercial buildings near to the basic land. In paragraph No.4 of Ext.C1 report, it is stated as follows;

¶58

“The property in the basic document is not similar to the acquired land. The acquired land is plain and is situated in a very good location with good development opportunities while area where the basic property is situated on the eastern side of the land is hilly and rocky. The eastern side of the basic land is about 100 ft above the ground level.”

¶59

The commission report would further show that the property covered by Ext.A2 is situated 300 feet south of Adichira junction and the property was sold for the construction of a flat. The available evidence would show that the acquired land

¶60

..6..

¶61

LAA No.164/2016

¶62

is situated in a commercially developed area and very near to M.C.Road. In Ext.R1 sale deed, the value of the property mentioned in Ext.R2, the extract of the page of the sub division register, is Rs.2,57,143/-. But, the fair value fixed by the government for these lands is Rs.4,00,000/-. The reference court, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and relying on Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds as well as the report of the Commissioner, allowed the reference, enhancing the land value from Rs.2,57,143/- per are to Rs.6,75,000/- per are. We do not find any reason to interfere with the enhancement on land value on reference.

¶63

Therefore, the land acquisition appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondent/claimant is also dismissed.

SD/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

SD/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

bka/-

T.M.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Varghese 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fayazkhan H.K., Vs the Director of Medical & Health Services, Kavaratti

Vinod Kumar P Vs K.Kamalakshi

State of Kerala Vs Sudha a Sreedharan

State of Kerala Vs Kool Foam Pvt. Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs K.v.Lakshmikutty Amma

Dr.Vasu Marakkath (Died) Vs the Special Tahaildar (L.a)