State of Kerala vs Muhammadali

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 07, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1351626

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1351626
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque,Honourable Mrs. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
Decided On: Mar 07, 2023
Case Number: LA.App./234/2015

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Kerala

Respondent

Muhammadali

Excerpt

.....the possession of the land was taken in the year 1975. no award was passed. the claimant approached this court with a writ petition. pursuant to that, a notification was issued on 28/4/2010 and, thereafter, an award was passed on 2/7/2012. the land acquisition officer awarded rs.12,21,865/- per are. on a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act, 1894, the reference court enhanced the land value to rs.44,46,000/- per ..5.. are, calculating at rs.18,00,000/- per cent based on ext.a4. the only question to be considered in this appeal is whether ext.a4 can be relied or not. the learned government pleader and the learned standing counsel for the kochi corporation argued that ext.a4 cannot be a basis for awarding enhanced compensation for the reason that ext.a4 consists of building.2. per contra the learned counsel for theappellant pointed out that in ext.a4 larger extent of land is involved and if the land value is worked out, it would come to rs.18,57,471/- per cent and, what is awarded is only rs.18 lakhs per cent. it further submitted that separate value has been shown for the building valued in ext.a4. we perused ext.a4. it can be seen that separate valuation has been made in regard to the land as well as the building. if the land value is worked out as per ext.a4, there cannot be any ..6.. quarrel regarding the enhancement granted. the distance between the land covered by ext.a4 and the distance between the acquired land is only 200 meters. both land is lying in the heart of ernakulam town. ext.a4 was issued in the year 2008 much before the notification. the land acquired from the claimant actually is a smaller extent, would have fetched more amount than the land referred in ext.a4 as it related to the land having nearly 95.560 cents. we find no merit in this appeal. the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque, judge sd/- shoba annamma eapen, judge ms

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944 LA.APP. NO. 234 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR 14/2012, DATED APPELLANT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BYU THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI CORPORATION, VYTTILA BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REKHA C.NAIR SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL RESPONDENT/S:
1 MUHAMMADALI (*) DIED S/O. MOIDEEN PILLAI, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 2 Mrs.NAFEESA W/O. MAMMU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 3 Mrs.SEREENA ABDUL KHADER D/O. MAMMU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 4 Mrs.SABIDHA SHIHABUDEEN D/O.MAMMU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 011. 5 Mrs.SUNITHA SADHIK D/O. MAMMU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 6 Mr.A.M. MUHAMMED IQBAL S/O. MAMMU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
..2..
7 Mr.A.M. MUHAMMED ANWAR S/O. MAMMU, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 8 Mr.ABDUL SATHAR S/O. AYSHAMMA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 9 Mrs.FOISIYA 10 Mrs.RASIYA 11 Mrs.JASMIN D/O. AYSHAMMA KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 12 Mrs.SAJITHA 13 Mrs.SAREENA 14 THE SECRETARY KOCHI CORPORATION, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 15 Mr.A M MUHAMED SADIQUEE, ALINGAPARAMBIL (H), SANTHI NAGAR ROAD, VENNALA PO, KOCHI 682028 16 Mr.A.M MUHAMMED JALAL, ALINGAPARAMBIL (H), MADAPPATT ROAD, NEAR SANTHI NAGAR ROAD, VENNALA PO, KOCHI 682028 17 Mr.A.M MUHAMMED ASIF, ALINGAPARAMBIL (H), GADHI JAYANTHI ROAD, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM 682 032 18 Mr.NAZIM ABDULKHADER, KATHILAPARAMBIL (H), ALANGAD (VIA), PANAYIKULAM, ERNAKULAM 683511 19 Mrs.A.M MUMTHAS BANU, RAYAMMAKKAT VETTIL (KOLLIKNYAL) THRITHATTOOR, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680614
..3.. 20 Mrs.SAIRA NAZIR, PUZHAKARAYIL (H), THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM 686 605 (*) LRs OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 15 TO 20 VIDE ORDER DATED 28/1/2O16 IN I.A.No.153/2016 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) FOR R1 TO R13 SRI.E.D.GEORGE FOR R14 V.P.REJITHA (PUZHAKKALIDOM) FOR R14 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..4..

J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J This appeal is filed by the State. An extent of 2 Ares of land in resurvey No.481/1-5 of Ernakulam Village in Kanayannur Taluk was acquired at the behest of Kochi Corporation for opening a road from C.P.Ummer Road to Staff Quarters of Kochi Corporation. The possession of the land was taken in the year 1975. No award was passed. The claimant approached this Court with a writ petition. Pursuant to that, a notification was issued on 28/4/2010 and, thereafter, an award was passed on 2/7/2012. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.12,21,865/- per Are. On a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the reference court enhanced the land value to Rs.44,46,000/- per ..5.. Are, calculating at Rs.18,00,000/- per Cent based on Ext.A4. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether Ext.A4 can be relied or not. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi Corporation argued that Ext.A4 cannot be a basis for awarding enhanced compensation for the reason that Ext.A4 consists of building.

2. Per Contra the learned counsel for the

appellant pointed out that in Ext.A4 larger extent of land is involved and if the land value is worked out, it would come to Rs.18,57,471/- per Cent and, what is awarded is only Rs.18 lakhs per Cent. It further submitted that separate value has been shown for the building valued in Ext.A4. We perused Ext.A4. It can be seen that separate valuation has been made in regard to the land as well as the building. If the land value is worked out as per Ext.A4, there cannot be any ..6.. quarrel regarding the enhancement granted. The distance between the land covered by Ext.A4 and the distance between the acquired land is only 200 meters. Both land is lying in the heart of Ernakulam town. Ext.A4 was issued in the year 2008 much before the notification. The land acquired from the claimant actually is a smaller extent, would have fetched more amount than the land referred in Ext.A4 as it related to the land having nearly 95.560 cents. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE ms

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties State of Kerala vs Muhammadali Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque,Honourable Mrs. Jus...