BY AD vs THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

BY ADV SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS IN LAR : 1 2 3 THAYYIL ARUN S/O. ASOKAN, PALLATTIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY P/A. HOLDER, NALINAKSHAN, S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR, “CHITHRA”, MANDARATHTHAZHAM NILAM. THE CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KRFB, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003. THE CO-ORDINATOR, KCRIP, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673020. LAA No.232 of 2020 2 2025:KER:28891 BY ADVS. SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LAA No.232 of 2020 3 2025:KER:28891 DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & EASWARAN S., JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L.A.A. No.232 of 2020 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Easwaran S., J. The present appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2017 in L.A.R. No.759 of 2015 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: An extent of 0.0345 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.192/13 of the Chelavur Amsom Desom of Kozhikode Taluk was acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening of the Panath Thazham-CWRDM road. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 25.8.2011 and the property was taken possession on 29.8.2013. When the notification under Section 4(1) was issued, the landowner/1st respondent herein raised an objection stating that the notification under Section 4(1) has been issued only in respect of 3.45 Ares of land which is equivalent to 8.52 cents whereas, the landowner is in possession of 15 cents of land as per document LAA No.232 of 2020 4 2025:KER:28891 No.4247/2006 of SRO Chevayur. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the objection and proceeded to pass the award for 8.52 cents of land by fixing the land value at Rs.2,49,369/- per cent. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the reference court the dispute regarding the total extent of land was also raised. The appellant herein contended that an extent of 6.45 cents of land formed part of an old road, and it was included in the ‘Oodunirathu’ long back and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to the compensation for the extent of 14.97 (15) cents of land. The claimant supported his claim on the basis of Exts.A1 to A10 documents. In addition to that, the claimant also sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. Exts.X1 to X6 were the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioner along with the sketch by the taluk surveyor and also the report of the expert engineer. On behalf of the appellants/respondents in L.A.R. the copy of the award No.30/2013 was produced. The reference court, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the contention of the State that 6.45 cents of land forms part of the ‘Oodunirathu’ is not supported by any documentary evidence, and therefore, proceeded to fix the market value. As regards the market value, the reference court, on analysis of the evidence, found that the claimant is entitled to an enhancement of Rs.4,50,000/- per cent and LAA No.232 of 2020 5 2025:KER:28891 answered the reference accordingly.

3. In this appeal the dispute raised by the appellant/State is that since the award was passed only in respect of 0.0345 hectares ( 8.52 cents), the reference is not justified in enhancing the compensation for the entire extent of 14.97 cents.

4. Heard Sri. T.K. Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant/State and Sri. Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant.

5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we find that as far as the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the point is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L.A.A. No.406 of 2017 dated 2.11.2024 wherein, in respect of the very same acquisition, the Co-ordinate Bench had re-fixed the land value at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). Though the claimant has not preferred any appeal or cross objection, we deem it appropriate to exercise the power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to bring parity in compensation in tune with the judgment rendered by this Court in L.A.A. No.406 of 2017.

6. Turning to the contention of the State that an extent of 6.45 cents of land which forms part of ‘Oodunirathu’, we find that the reference court was justified in passing the judgment inasmuch as no evidence was made available before the reference court to substantiate LAA No.232 of 2020 6 2025:KER:28891 the contention of the State.

7. Faced with the situation, the learned Senior Government Pleader prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the State to substantiate the case by producing the Asset Register available with the Kozhikode Corporation which would evidence the existence of the road which is in the name of the Government. We find that the said request is perfectly justified. We also note that the claimant, though, had produced Exts.A1 to A10 documents, did not produce the original of the possession certificate nor the details regarding the Thandaper Register which would have resolved the dispute in question. We also note that the appellant/State, apart from producing the documents relating to the passing of the award, did not produce the Asset Register of the Kozhikode Corporation, which would have resolved the dispute finally.

8. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, we feel that, in the interest of justice, an opportunity can be granted to the State to substantiate the claim that 6.45 cents of land forms part of the ‘Oodunirathu’ by producing the Asset Register of the Kozhikode Corporation which will indicate whether or not the land in question was vested in the Corporation or not. For the said limited purpose, we remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode. The reference court shall look into the Asset Register produced by the State and, if the land in question is included in the Asset LAA No.232 of 2020 7 2025:KER:28891 Register then, it shall exclude the corresponding extent of land from the land acquired from the claimant/respondent. If, on the other hand, there is no mention of the land in the Asset Register of the Corporation, then the reference court shall deem the land as having been acquired from the respondent.

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand for the limited purpose of enabling the State to produce the Asset Register to substantiate the claim of 6.46 cents of land which forms part of the ‘Oodunirathu’. In so far as the market value of land is concerned, by invoking the powers under Order XLI 41 Rule 33, we refix the land value at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) following the judgment in L.A.A. No.406 of 2007. In order to enable the reference court to pass fresh orders, we direct the parties to appear before the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode on 10.4.2025. The reference court shall endeavor to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible as per priority. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE NS Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE