High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Visalakshi Amma on 16 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Visalakshi Amma on 16 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1219 of 2008()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VISALAKSHI AMMA, SANAKARA VILASATHU
                       ...       Respondent

2. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR,

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :16/09/2009

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
             K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
    ------------------------------------------------
              L. A. A. No.1219 of 2008
    ------------------------------------------------
    Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009

                    JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

The Government is in appeal. The acquisition was

for the purposes of Thiruvananthapuram International

Airport. The Land Acquisition Officer included the

properties in category-2 and awarded land value at

the rate of Rs.98,712/- per Are. The Reference Court

under the impugned judgment re-fixed the same at

Rs.2,25,000/- per Are.

2. It is submitted by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan,

the learned Senior Government Pleader that this Court

considering the acquisition of properties included in

category-1, has approved the award of 70%

L. A. A. No.1219 of 2008 -2-

enhancement for properties in that category. It is

submitted that for category-1, the rate approved is

Rs.2,25,000/- per Are only. The learned Senior

Government Pleader requested that the ratio

maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between

the value of category-1 and category-2 will be

maintained and a proportionate decrease be made.

Enhancement beyond 70% may not be granted, so

requested the learned Government Pleader.

3. Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal submitted that the

Reference Court in L.A.R.62/06 has enhanced the land

value from Rs.78,743/- per Are to Rs.15 lakhs per Are.

The Government has not so far preferred any appeal

against that award. Therefore, there is no justification

at all for interfering with the present enhancement.

The learned counsel also referred to judgment of this

L. A. A. No.1219 of 2008 -3-

Court in L.A.A.1081/08 wherein the property involved

was categorised under category-6. For property in

category-6, this Court has re-fixed land value at

Rs.2,25,000/- per Are. Category-2 is superior to

category-6 and therefore, there is every justification

for approving the present enhancement.

4. We have anxiously considered the rival

submissions. It is true that this Court become inclined

to approve the enhancement granted to properties in

category-6 in LAA.1081/08. But, the present property

is in category-2 and evidently, the properties in

category-2 are more comparable to the properties in

category-1 than the properties in category-6. May be

on the basis of the evidence available in L.A.A.

No.1081/08, this Court found that the categorisation

of that property in category-6 by the Reference Court

L. A. A. No.1219 of 2008 -4-

was not proper. We are more inclined to follow the

decision taken by us in cases pertaining to category-1.

At the same time, we feel that there is justification in

this case for granting a slightly higher percentage of

increase than what was granted to the properties in

category-1. Relying on the judgment of this Court in

cases involving properties in category-1, we re-fix the

land value of the properties under acquisition at

Rs.1,80,000/- per Are in modification of the rates fixed

by the Reference Court under the impugned judgment.

The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent.

Parties are directed to suffer their costs.

5. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan would argue that

the Reference Court was not justified in awarding

additional amounts under Section 23(1A) even during

periods when the land acquisition proceedings were

L. A. A. No.1219 of 2008 -5-

under stay. Sri.Gopakumar would submit that the

claimants/respondents were not parties to the case in

which this Court stayed the land acquisition

proceedings. We are not inclined to accept the

submissions of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned

Senior Government Pleader in the above regard, as

there is no specific ground in that respect raised in the

memorandum of appeal.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-