Kerala High Court
LA.App./67/2011 of K.V.SAROJINI Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 LA.App.No. 67 of 2011 (B) -------------------------- LAR.28/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
LA.App.No. 67 of 2011 (B)
--------------------------
LAR.28/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT:---------------------
1. K.V.SAROJINI
2. K.K.SASI
3. GEETHA
4. K.JEEJA
5. SHAJI.K.V
6. K.USHA
(ALL R/AT KARUKANDANKAVIL HOUSE,PALAZHI GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.K.SASI,THE 2ND APPELLANT/CLAIMANT).
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), KOZHIKODE.
2. THE SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.
R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRANR2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU, SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VPV
S.SIRI JAGAN &
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
The claimant in LAR.No.28/2004 before the SubordinateJudge's Court, Kozhikode is the appellant herein. An extentof 0.1050 hectares of garden land comprised inR.S. No.37/20 of Punthiyangadi Village, in Kozhikode Talukbelonging to the petitioner was acquired for theKunduparamba U.P.School. Notification under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29.6.2001. TheLand Acquisition Officer passed award No.5/2003 dated26.06.2003 assessing a compensation of Rs.8,18,933/- forthe land acquired. Possession of the land was taken on18.08.2003.
2. Dissatisfied with the land value so fixed, thepetitioner filed objections and the matter was referred to theSubordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Subordinate Judge awardedcompensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent for the landacquired from the petitioner. The petitioner is challengingthe compensation fixed by the Sub Court on the ground thatthe compensation is not commensurate with the marketvalue of the land.
3. According to the petitioner, after having accepted thefact that, the value of an adjacent property, 500 meters awayfrom the acquired land, which is on the side of a pocket roadwas valued at Rs.40,000/- per cent, the Sub Court wentwrong in fixing the value of this land only as Rs.35,000/-. It isfurther submitted that as per Exhibit X1 report of theAdvocate Commissioner, who inspected the properties, hehad fixed the market value of the property as Rs.75,000/- percent. According to the petitioner, the Sub Court ought tohave accepted the value suggested by the AdvocateCommissioner. The petitioner therefore seeks enhancement of compensation for the land acquired from him.
4. The learned Govt. Pleader would contend that thesuggestion made by the Advocate Commissioner is not basedon any documents of transactions in respect of comparableproperties. It was only a guess work made by the AdvocateCommissioner, which cannot be adopted as the market valueof the land. It is submitted that the Sub Court correctlyassessed the market value of the property based on theevidence available on record. According to the learned Govt.Pleader the compensation fixed by the Subordinate Court isfair and reasonable.
5. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
6. The Sub Court itself accepted Ext. A1 document as thebasis for fixing the land value. That is a sale transactionbetween a private party and a trust. The land value fixed inthat document is Rs.40,000/- per cent. But the SubordinateCourt himself accepted the fact that, that land is by the side
of a pocket road, whereas the acquired property is by theside of the Puthiyangadi-Kunduparmba public road near toKunduparmba Junction having great potential forcommercial, industrial and residential purposes. The SubCourt also accepted that the transaction being between aprivate party and a trust, the valuation fixed therein can beaccepted as fair and reasonable. But after accepting thefact that, that land is by the side of a pocket road having lessimportance than the acquired land, no reason is forthcomingin the judgment for fixing a lesser market value for theacquired property. When for a less important property 500meters away from the acquired property, Rs.40,000/- percent has been fixed as the market value, we are not satisfiedthat there is any reason to reduce the market value of theacquired property from Rs.40,000/- per cent. Accordingly wemodify the compensation awarded by the Sub Court byaltering the same to Rs. 40,000/- per cent instead of
Rs.35,000/- per cent. Needless to say the petitioner would be entitled to all statutory benefits for the additionalcompensation.
The appeal is disposed of as above.
sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE,
sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
jm/-