High CourtsDivision Bench

Ambalangadan Aboobacker and Others vs The District Collector, Malappuram

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 26 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 KL CK 0078

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pius C. Kuriakose, J · A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4(1)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
LA. No. 2221 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 392 words

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.—Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, senior Govt. Pleader submitted that he has received notice and the appeal need not be taken as defective. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. C.R.Syamkumar. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Pallikkal Village for the purpose of Kondotty - Thirurangadi Diversion Road pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 7-2-1996. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5251/- per cent. Before the Reference Court two documents were produced by the appellants. But those documents were discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge stating that the properties covered by those documents are not comparable. Finally the learned Subordinate Judge, based on guess work, fixed the market value at Rs. 8064/- per cent. The main ground which is raised in this appeal is that we should follow the judgments passed by this Court in cases pertaining to acquisition of lands in Pallikkal Village for the purpose of Kozhikode Airport and additions be granted for passage of time. Mr. Syamkumar does not agree. According to him, comparability between the properties acquired for Kozhikode Airport and the property under acquisition was never brought on record.

2.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence. There is justification for the learned Subordinate Judge in having discarded the two documents produced by the appellant. At the same time we find that the guess work done by the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing the market value is not a good guess. According to us, there is justification for awarding to the appellant Rs. 1500/- more than what is awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge. Accordingly we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 9564/- percent. Thus we are awarding to the appellants Rs. 1500/- percent more than what is awarded by the Subordinate Judge. On the re-fixed compensation the appellants will get all statutory benefits. However, while decree is drafted the section will take due note of the conditions imposed by this Court in the order in C.M. Application No. 2271/08. Decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memo is remitted.

The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent.