Loading...

Radha Lakshmi vs The Special Tahsildhar on 4 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Radha Lakshmi vs The Special Tahsildhar on 4 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 224 of 2004()


1. RADHA LAKSHMI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BABURAJ,

                        Vs



1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :04/06/2009

 O R D E R
            PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
              ---------------------------------------------
                        L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
              ---------------------------------------------
                       Dated: JUNE 4, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

In this appeal, the appellants who are claimants D and E in

LAR 17 of 1998 of II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, challenged

the judgment and decree of that court dated November 19, 2001

awarding a compensation of Rs.5000/- per cent, enhancing the

compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer at the rate

of Rs.7132/- per Are i.e. Rs.2886/- per cent.

2. The facts in brief are these: An extent of 0.1305 hectare

of land in Sy.No.569/5B of Killimangalam village was acquired for

the purpose of reconstruction of Killimangalam overbridge. Sec.4

(1) notification was published in gazette dated July 18, 1995.

The land acquisition authority fixed the land value at Rs.7132/-

per Are i.e. Rs.2886/- for one cent, based on document

No.921/1995 of Chelakkara Sub Registry. The claimants claimed

enhancement at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The

Reference Court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5000/- per

L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
2

cent. Dissatisfied with the said enhancement granted by the

reference court, the claimants have come up in appeal.

3. Before the reference court, Aws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimants.

RW.1 was examined and Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the

respondent State. The report of the commissioner was marked

as Ext.X1.

4. After the reference was taken on file by the reference

court, the original claimant died. His legal heirs were impleaded

as additional claimants B, C, D and E. Claimant B filed a

statement before the reference court stating that he has no right

over the property in view of the partition effected in their family.

After the judgment and decree of the reference court claimants B

and C also died. Claimants D and E are the legal heirs. This

appeal is filed by claimants D and E.

5. The reference court rejected the basic document as

there is no evidence to show that the lands covered by the basic

sale deed and the acquired land are similarly situated. The

rough sketch produced along with the award shows that the land

L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
3

covered by the basic document is situated in a less important

locality. The commissioner has reported in his report Ext.X1

that the acquired property is near Chelakkara center which is a

business center. Therefore we are of the view that the learned

Sub Judge is justified in rejecting the basic document.

6. The lower court did not accept the documents Exts.A1

and A2. By Exts.A1 and A2, 10 cents of land were sold for

Rs.1,95,000/- each. The commissioner has reported that the

lands covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are 3 kms. away from the

acquired land and are situated in a more important locality,

therefore, not comparable with the acquired plot. That being

so, we feel that the lower court is right in not accepting Exts.A1

and A2.

7. The learned Sub Judge, taking into consideration the fact

that the acquired land has road frontage and is situated near

Chelakkara center, fixed the land value at Rs.5000/- per cent.

PW.1 has testified that the acquired land has road frontage and

that it is near Chelakkara center which is a business center.

This is not challenged in cross-examination. Admittedly the

L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
4

acquired property is near Chelakkara center which is a business

center. The commissioner has reported in Ext.X1 that at present

the market value of the land in that locality is about Rs.25,000/-

to Rs.30,000/- per cent. Taking into consideration the

importance of the locality where the acquired land is situated and

having regard to the fact that the acquired land had the

potentiality for being used for commercial and residential

purposes and as there was fair possibility of increase in its

market value in the near future, and in the circumstances of the

case and in the light of the principles laid down in Atma Singh v.

State of Haryana (AIR 2008 SC 709), we feel that the market

value of the land acquired as on the date of publication of sec.4

(1) notification i.e. during 1995 can be reasonably fixed at

Rs.8000/- per cent.

8. The reference court awarded Rs.10,000/- towards

injurious affection of the remaining 3 cents of land of the

claimants on the Eastern side of the road. We are of the view

that the said compensation awarded is reasonable.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The value of the land

L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
5

acquired is fixed at Rs.8000/- per cent. The appellants are

entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium and

interest to the enhanced compensation. The enhanced

compensation shall be disbursed to claimants D and E, the

appellants. The claimants are entitled to proportionate costs.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

mt/-

L.A.A. 224 Of 2004
6

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

——————————

L.A.A. 224 Of 2004

JUDGMENT

——————————

4.6.2009

Leave a Comment

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information