Partly allowed

Ajith, S/O.Gopinathan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2024LA.App./475/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of land acquisition compensation for land taken for widening Adoor bypass road. The court raised the value from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,50,000 per are based on a comparable judgment and evidence, but declined enhancement for improvements or alleged diminished land value.

What did the court decide?

Land value fixed at Rs.1,50,000 per are with all consequential admissible statutory benefits.

Ajith, S/O.Gopinathan Nair 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

FRIDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945 LA.APP. NO. 475 OF 2013

¶7

JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 30.10.2012 IN LAR 328/2005 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶9

1 AJITH, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, KULANGARA PUTHEN VEETTIL, KANNAMANGARA MURI, ADOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM M.R GARDENS, KULANGARA, KOLLAM PIN 691 012.

¶10

2 ASHOK, KULANGARA PUTHEN VEETTIL, KANNAMANGARA MURI, ADOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DILNAR, VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 035.

¶11

3 ANIL, KULANGARA PUTHEN VEETTIL, KANNAMANGARA MURI, ADOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DILNAR, VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 035.

¶12

4 *[ANANDAMAYI C, W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, KULANGARA PUTHEN VEETTIL, KANNAMANGARA MURI, ADOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DILNAR, VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 035.] *DIED

¶13

DEATH OF THE 4TH APPELLANT IS RECORDED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 IN IA NO.1/2024 IN LAA 475/2013

¶14

APPELLANTS 1-3 WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY, ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 4TH APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 IN IA NO.1/2024 IN LAA 475/2013

¶15

LA.APP. NO. 475 OF 2013

¶16

..2..

¶17

BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶18

RESPONDENTS & STATE:

¶19

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶20

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSIP, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶21

BY SENIOR GP – SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN – R1 & R2

¶22

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

LA.APP. NO. 475 OF 2013

¶24

..3..

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶27

The claimants are before us. The notification was issued on 03.02.2005 for acquisition of land for widening Adoor bypass road. In the impugned judgment, it is found as follows;

¶28

“On evaluating the oral evidence given by AW1 to AW3 and exhibits relied by claimant side, I am of the view that the award passed by the LAO did not reflect the real market value of the acquired property and its commercial importance and potential value. Here claimant claimed Rs 75000/- per cent. Ext A4 valued Rs 79,677/- and Ext A5 valued Rs 90,000/- per cent. But it lie more close to Adoor centre. So it is just and fair to fix Rs 75,000/- per cent as the land value of the acquired property.”

¶29

However, in spite of such finding, the land value was fixed at Rs.75,000/- per are for the reason that the land value was fixed at Rs.75,000/- per are in another case.

¶30

It is to be noted that in respect of another notification in the year 2004 for widening Adoor bypass road, this Court, in LAA No.476 of 2012, fixed the land value at

¶31

LA.APP. NO. 475 OF 2013

¶32

..4..

¶33

Rs.3,00,000/- per are. In this appeal, the appellants claim Rs.1,50,000/- per are. Taking note of Ext.A4 and also the judgment of this Court in LAA No.476 of 2012, we are of the view that the land value can be fixed at Rs.1,50,000/per are in this appeal.

¶34

Appellants also raised a claim for value of improvements. We find that compensation was granted for value of improvements and therefore, there is no scope for further enhancement under this head.

¶35

They further have a claim for compensation for diminishing the value of the land for the reason that the road was formed in the middle of the land. We perused the commission report. Though the commission report refers that the land was divided into two, nothing has been stated about the diminishing value of the land. It is to be noted that when a road is formed in the middle of a land, the claimant would be benefited with the enhancement of land value on either side. Therefore, we find no reason for enhancement of compensation on that ground as well.

¶36

Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed, fixing the land

¶37

LA.APP. NO. 475 OF 2013

¶38

..5..

¶39

value at Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per are. The appellants would also be entitled to all consequential admissible statutory benefits.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

bka/-

Ajith, S/O.Gopinathan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith, S/O.Gopinathan Nair 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

State of Kerala Vs Kool Foam Pvt. Ltd.

T.M.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.v.Lakshmikutty Amma

R.S Moideen through Power of Attorney Holder K.K.Muhammed Vs Spl. Tahsildar (L.a.)

A.N.Nanda, Vs Varghese

A N Nanda Vs C.K. Rajendran