High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 03 KL CK 0208

P. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate and Sobhana T.R. vs State of Kerala and The Managing Director

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 March 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pius C. Kuriakose, J · N.K. Balakrishnan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
LA. App. No. 951 of 2010 (C)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 476 words

N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—The claimants are in appeal. Their properties situated in Panniyankara Village were acquired for the purpose of constructing approach road to Meenchanda Railway Over-bridge. Notification u/s 4(1) was published on 29-3-2001. For determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 22,590/- per cent. The claimants relied on Ext.A1 document which reflected a land value of Rs. 1,17,000/- per cent. The court below after analyzing evidence, re-fixed the land value at Rs. 60,000/- per cent. The Appellants contend that a perusal of the commission report would make it clear that the acquired land is situated by the side of Kozhikode - Beypore Road near Government Arts and Science College, Meenchanda. It was reported by the Commissioner that there are several educational institutions, industrial units, temples etc. situated very close to the acquired land. It was also reported by the Commissioner that the basis land is situated far away from the acquired land and is not similarly situated and that is not at all comparable with the acquired land. The learned Counsel for the Appellants Sri. Jaju Babu would submit that the commissioner''s report was in fact not seriously challenged by the Respondents and so the court below should have accepted Ext.A1 to fix the land value as on the date of Ext.A1. It is further pointed out that Ext.A1 is dated 23-5-2000, about ten months prior to the date of notification and as such for the passage of time the land value should have been further increased. But even the land value that is reflected in Ext.A1 was not allowed by the court below. The learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that Ext.A1 cannot be relied upon to fix the land value since the property therein was purchased by the Indian Oil Corporation for a commercial purpose and is situated about 1 km. away from the acquired land. The court below relying upon Ext.X-1, the report of the commissioner, found that the acquired land is situated very close to the Government Arts and Science College, Meenchanda. It is also found that it is a residential area and not a commercial area.

2.

We find that Ext.A1 has to be relied upon to fix the land value. Considering the passage of time the value of the land shown in Ext.A1 can be taken as Rs. 1,20,000/- per cent as on the date of notification u/s 4(1). But however, considering the fact that Ext.A1 property was purchased by the Indian Oil Corporation for commercial purpose, reducing 20% there from the land value can be fixed at the rate of Rs. 96,000/- per cent. It is accordingly fixed. To that extent the appeal is allowed. The claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment.