High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Shyamala Kumari Amma on 20 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Shyamala Kumari Amma on 20 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 2379 of 2008(D)


1. STATE OF KERALA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHYAMALA KUMARI AMMA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.L.MOHANAN

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

 Dated :20/07/2009

 O R D E R
          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                     ------------------------
                    L.A.A.No.2379 OF 2008
                     ------------------------

              Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of

the Thiruvananthapuram Sub Court in L.A.R. No. 327/2004. The

case pertains to acquisition of land in Venganoor Village for the

purpose widening of road from Kovalam Mukkola Reach 1

pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 25/3/2002.

The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of

Rs.16407/- per Are including the acquired property in category-E.

i.e. properties without road frontage. But, the reference court

under the impugned judgment, would upgrade the property

under acquisition to category-D. Relying on the earlier

judgments and evidence which came on record, the reference

court refixed the value of the land at Rs.60,000/- per Are. The

ground, which is prominently raised in this memorandum of

appeal, is that the upgradation of the category allowed by the

learned Subordinate Judge was wrong.

2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha

L.A.A..No.2379/2008 2

T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader for the

appellant and those of Smt.Ligey Antony, learned counsel for the

respondent claimant.

3. The Government Pleader would submit that the only

material, on the basis of which the learned Subordinate Judge

upgraded the category of the land under acquisition, was the

oral evidence of AW1. The learned counsel submitted that no

commission was taken out and there was no report on the basis

of which it could be said that the acquired properties enjoyed the

frontage of the Panchayat road by name Chirayil road.

4. Smt. Ligey Antony would submit that interference with

the impugned judgment will result in dismissal of L.A.A. Nos.1723

& 1733/2008 preferred by the claimants in other cases which

were decided by the learned Subordinate Judge along with the

present LAR. The ground in those appeals is that the value given

to the claimant in this case should be given to them also.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. As rightly

submitted by the learned Government Pleader, it is relying on the

oral testimony of AW1 and on what is described by the learned

Subordinate Judge as perusal of records, that the learned

L.A.A..No.2379/2008 3

Subordinate Judge concluded that the property under acquisition

was fit to be included in category-D i.e. properties having

frontage of Panchayat road by name Chirayil Road. We have gone

through the records. Mahazar reveals that the properties under

acquisition did not enjoy the frontage of Chirayil road at all. If

that be so, the only evidence available was the self serving oral

evidence of AW1. Significantly, no commission report was

obtained by the claimant to support the contention that the

properties enjoy the frontage of Chirayil road.

6. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that

the upgradation of the category allowed by the learned

Subordinate Judge was improper. Accordingly, we set aside the

judgment and decree under appeal and refix the value of the

properties under acquisition at Rs.42,000/- per Are, the value

uniformly adopted by the court for properties in category E. It

is needless to mention that the appellant claimant will be entitled

for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2)

and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act on the total enhanced

compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of our

refixation of the land value of the acquired properties at at the

L.A.A..No.2379/2008 4

rate of Rs.42,000/- per Are under this judgment.

The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent, but in

the circumstances without any order as to costs.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk