High CourtsDivision Bench

Satheedevi vs State of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 August 2012 · Citation: (2012) 08 KL CK 0041

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
LAA. NO. 495 of 2012
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

4 paragraphs · 405 words

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Upon this appeal coming up for admission, Smt. Rose Michael learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the Government and we have heard the submissions of Sri. Pratheesh P. learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Thrikkadavur village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26/3/1996. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 20,238/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned award would refix the land value at Rs. 32,381/- per Are. According to the appellant, the rate refixed by the Reference Court is inadequate.

2.

Mr. Pratheesh learned counsel for the appellant would draw our attention to our own judgment in L.A.A. No. 1123/2009. It was submitted that under that judgment for an inferior property acquired pursuant to the same notification for the same purpose, this court approved the rate of Rs. 43,640/- per Are granted to the claimant therein. According to the learned counsel, if the same proportionate increase is given, the appellant will be entitled for more than Rs. 85,000/- per Are. The appellant has limited her claim to Rs. 70,000/- per Are. The learned counsel requests that the appeal be allowed in full.

3.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that comparability between the property covered by the judgment in L.A.A. NO. 1123/2009 and the property under acquisition in this case has not been properly brought out. According to the Government Pleader, prejudice will be occasioned to the Government if the same proportion of increase is given. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for enhancement. The question is whether the same rate of enhancement as is approved by us in L.A.A. N0.1123/2009 should be granted. If the same rate of increase is granted, the appellant will become eligible for refixation of land value at more than Rs. 80,000/- per Are. We are not inclined to grant the same rate of enhancement. However, relying on the above judgment to a considerable extent, we allow this appeal and refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 65,000/- per Are.

The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the refixed compensation subject to the conditions we have imposed while allowing the delay petition. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.