Kerala High Court
Pathur Abdusalam vs The Special Tahsildar (La) on 18 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
LA.App..No.115 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2013 IN LAR NO.52/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
PATHUR ABDUSALAM
S/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN, VALAKKULAM, TIRURANDADI,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABOOBACKER
HAJI, S/O. VALLIL KOMU, PALLIPURAM HOUSE, PARAPPUR
AMSOM DESOM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
TIRUR - 676 101.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), MANJERI - 676 121.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, ALONG WITH LA.App..116/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
L.A.APP.Nos.115 & 116 /2014 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
LA.App..No.116 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2013 IN L.A.R. NO.51/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SUB COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
V.ABOOBACKER HAJI
VALLIL HOUSE, PARAPPUR, THIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
LA(G), TIRUR, PIN - 676 101.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD (ROADS), MANJERI, PIN - 676 121.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, ALONG WITH LA.App..115/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
L.A.APP.Nos.115 & 116 /2014 3
JUDGMENT
[ LA.App..115/2014, LA.App..116/2014 ]
Dated this the 18th day of January 2021
...
Hariprasad, J.
Since the matters involved in the above two
appeals are in connection with the acquisition of
lands for the same purpose under the same
notification, the above two appeals are disposed
of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants dissatisfied with the
judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirur
in L.A.R.No.52 of 2012 and L.A.R.No.51 of 2012
have come up in appeals under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. In L.A.A.No.115 of 2014, 0.012 hectares
of land comprised in Re-Survey No.142/12(old
142/1)belonged to the claimant was acquired for
the purpose of construction of a bridge. Section
4(1)notification was issued on 10.03.2006. Award
was passed on 26.03.2012 determining a total
compensation of Rs.62,072/- for the acquired
land. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount,
the matter was referred to the Sub Court, Tirur.
After consideration of the materials placed
before the Sub Court, the land value was enhanced
to Rs.20,000/- per cent. The claimant was allowed
12% addition from the date of Section 4(1)
notification till the date of award. 30% solatium
on the market value was also allowed with
interest at the rate of 9%. The claimant was
ordered to be entitled to get 15% interest from
the date of possession.
4. In L.A.A.No.116 of 2014, an extent of
0.0440 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey
No.142/12(old 142/1) belonged to the claimant was
acquired for the aforementioned bridge. An
amount of Rs.4,81,950/- has been awarded as
compensation. Finding not happy with the
compensation, the claimant approached the Sub
Court for enhancement of the land value. As per
the judgment, the land value was fixed at the
rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent as in the other case
and similar reliefs were granted.
5. Aggrieved by the fixation of compensation
amount, the claimants have come up in these
appeals.
6. We heard the learned counsel for
appellants and the learned Government Pleader.
The locational advantages of the properties have
been discussed in the judgment. The court below
has considered the potential value of the
properties. Relying on the materials produced,
the court below fixed the land value at the rate
of Rs.20,000/- per cent. The learned counsel for
appellants would contend that, the land involved
in L.A.A.No.115 of 2014 would have fetched
Rs.55,000/- per cent and that of the land
involved in L.A.A.No.116 of 2014 at the rate of
Rs.45,000/- per cent. It is also contended by the
learned counsel for appellants that a building
has also been involved in L.A.A.No.116 of 2014.
Having regard to the recitals in the impugned
judgment, we find no reason to take a different
view in respect of the value of the building
because there is no material available to find
that Rs.1,18,126/- fixed for the building is low.
No expert commission was taken out to fix the
value of the building and no other material was
produced to show that the valuation of the
building is less. Therefore, we find no reason to
enhance the building value as claimed by the
appellant. However, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of this case, we find that the
land value can be fixed at Rs.30,000/- per cent
considering the fact that the notification was in
the year 2006 and the plot is located in an
important part of Malappuram district, where the
land value could have been high at that time. The
Commissioner's report shows the importance of the
locality and, therefore, we find that the land is
situated in a potentially important place.
Therefore, we fix the land value at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per cent. Other directions in the
order of the Sub Court, Tirur are confirmed.
The above Appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
pkk
