TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms High Court's ruling on land acquisition compensation, burden of proof on claimants.</h1> <h3>PERIYAR AND PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> PERIYAR AND PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. Versus STATE OF KERALA - 1990 AIR 2192, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 362, JT 1991 (1) 450, 1990 SCALE (2)525, (1991) 4 SCC 195 Issues Involved:1. Justification of High Court in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court.2. Determination of market value for the acquired lands.3. Entitlement to severance charges and compensation for injurious effects on remaining lands.4. Entitlement to payment of interest on solatium.Summary:1. Justification of High Court in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court:The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Civil Court's awards and decrees. The High Court reversed the Civil Court's decision, which had enhanced the market value of the lands and awarded compensation including severance and injurious effects. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the claimants to show that the Land Acquisition Collector's award was inadequate and that the Civil Court had not subjected the evidence to critical scrutiny. The High Court was found justified in its reversal due to the lack of reliable evidence from the claimants.2. Determination of market value for the acquired lands:The Supreme Court discussed the principles for determining market value in compulsory acquisition cases, referencing several precedents. The Court noted that the High Court, after rejecting the evidence from both the claimants and the State, should have considered the concession made by the Advocate General of Kerala, who suggested a market value of Rs. 18 per cent. The Supreme Court accepted this concession and fixed the market value at Rs. 18 per cent for the lands, while confirming Rs. 30 per cent for wet lands as awarded by the Collector.3. Entitlement to severance charges and compensation for injurious effects on remaining lands:The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims for severance charges and compensation for injurious effects. The evidence showed that the appellant did not incur expenses for erecting boundary walls, bridges, or culverts, and there was no significant damage due to the acquisition. Thus, the award for severance charges was deemed unwarranted.4. Entitlement to payment of interest on solatium:The Supreme Court held that the term 'compensation' u/s 25(3) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Regulation includes interest on solatium. The Court referenced the case of Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar & Anr., which distinguished between market value and compensation. It concluded that the appellant is entitled to interest on solatium at 6% per annum from the date of possession until the date of payment.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed to the extent that the market value was fixed at Rs. 18 per cent, with solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the excess market value, including solatium. The judgment of the High Court was otherwise confirmed, with parties bearing their own costs.
TaxTMI 