Dr. Seetha Lakshmi @ Dr.Swathi K. … vs Special Tahsildar on 21 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dr. Seetha Lakshmi @ Dr.Swathi K. … vs Special Tahsildar on 21 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 437 of 2006(D)


1. DR. SEETHA LAKSHMI @ DR.SWATHI K. VASU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :21/05/2010

 O R D E R
        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                  ----------------------------------

                    L.A.A. No.437 of 2006

                  ----------------------------------

              Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010


                        J U D G M E N T

———————-

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition

of land in Elayavoor village for the purpose of Chovva Nadal

Byepass pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on

1.11.1997. Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at

Rs.5000/- per cent (roughly). The reference court refixed

land value at Rs.7,500/- per cent. Even though Exts.A1 to A3

documents were produced and Advocate Commissioner in

Ext.X1 report stated that properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3

are comparable with the property under acquisition, the

court below did not place any reliance on Exts.A1 to A3. The

court below noticed that in several other cases pertaining to

the same acquisition, uniform rate of Rs.7,500/- per cent has

been fixed and hence became inclined to refix the land value

at Rs.7,500/- per cent only.

2. Various grounds have been raised in this appeal

and Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, learned counsel for the appellant

L.A.A.437/06-D
2

addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. All

those arguments were stiffly resisted by Smt. Latha T.

Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader. Our attention is

drawn by Mr.Kaimal to the judgment of this court in

LAA.No.1225/2005. Records pertaining to that case were

incorporated and it is seen that the above case was in

respect of acquisition of identical land for the same purpose

pursuant to the same notification. It is seen that under that

judgment this court did not interfere with the decision of the

reference court to refix the land value at Rs.24,194/- per Are.

We would have been inclined to allow the appeal by refixing

land value at Rs.25,194/- per Are. But it is brought to our

notice by the Government Pleader that the appellant’s claim

before the officer as well as the court was limited to

Rs.9,850/- per cent. Accordingly, in modification of the

impugned judgment we refix the land value of the property

under acquisition at Rs.9,850/- per cent, corresponding to

Rs.24,314/- per Are. Appeal is allowed to the above extent.

The appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory

benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of

L.A.A.437/06-D
3

the Land Acquisition Act.

3. However, while drafting the decree the Registry

will have due regard to the direction of this court in the

order condoning the delay. This means that during the

period of delay condoned by this court the total enhanced

compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible

under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal is

allowed but without any order as to costs. The order in

CMA.No.661/2006 stands modified to the above extent.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *