✦ High Court of India · 02 Apr 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 02 Apr 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

02 Apr 2025

Bench

A K JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR EASWARAN S

Length

1,713 words

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.TK SHAJAHAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..182/2019, 528/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 182 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2018 IN LAR NO.94 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: SABITHA K.P, AGED 48 YEARS W/O BABU @ KUNHAMMED, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT “HASNAS”, MUZHAPILANGAD P.O.NEAR MOIDU BRIDGE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, THALASSERY, PIN-670 301. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD N.H. DIVISION, THALASERY, PIN-670 301. 3 STATE OF KERALA, LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 4 REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 002. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..170/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CO NO. 146 OF 2024 IN L.A.APP.NO.528/2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2022 IN LAR NO.2 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NH DIVISION, PWD, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA,THALASSERY, PIN - 670301 BY ADV.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: HAFSATHABI M K LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 8 D/O RUKHIYA M K, RESIDING AT AKBAR MAHAL, DHARMADAM P O, NEAR MOIDU BRIDGE, THALASERRY TALUK, KANNUR, PIN 670106 – ADV SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..170/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 9 DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & EASWARAN S., J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019 & 528/2022 Cross Objection No.146/2024 in L.A.App.No.528/2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 Easwaran S., J. J U D G M E N T These appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees in LAR Nos.95/2014 and 94/2014 dated 31.10.2018 and in LAR No.2/2017 dated

4.2.2022 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery, respectively. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: L.A.App.Nos.182/2019 & 170/2019

2. An extent of 0.0164 Hectares and 0.0404 Hectares of land, respectively, comprised in R.S No.214/7A of Muzhappilangad Village, Kannur Taluk was acquired for the purpose of construction of the approach road to Moidu bridge. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8.2.2010 and the award was passed on 13.12.2012. The land acquisition officer, relying on document No.2574/08 dated 15.11.2008, fixed the land value at Rs.11,200/- per cent. Dissatisfied with the amount fixed by the land acquisition officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 10 Act. L.A.App.No.528/2022

3. An extent of 0.0186 Hectares of land comprised in R.S No.24/1 (New S.No.24/11) of Dharmadam Village, Thalassery Taluk was acquired for the purpose of construction of the approach road to New Moidu bridge. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22.04.2009 and the award was passed on

03.05.2012. The land acquisition officer, relying on document No.2574/08 dated 15.11.2008, fixed the land value at Rs.11,190/- per cent. Dissatisfied with the amount fixed by the land acquisition officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. Before reference court, claimants L.A.App.Nos.182/2019 & 170/2019 adduced evidence in the form of Exts.A1 to A7 and examined AW1 to AW4. An Advocate Commissioner was taken out for local inspection, who submitted his report as Ext.X1. The copy of the basic document was produced by the respondents and marked as Ext.R1. The claimants basically contended that as per sale deed No.2557/2012 dated 4.7.2012, the State had purchased the property from the land owners for the very same acquisition, where the total amount fixed was Rs.1,67,000/- per cent. The reference court in LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 11 these cases reduced 50% of the amount so fixed under Ext.A5 and arrived at a value of Rs.80,000/- per cent.

5. Insofar as L.A.App No.528/2022 is concerned, the claimants therein produced Exts.A1 to A9 documents and examined BW1 and BW3 as witnesses. The basic document was produced on the side of the respondents as Ext.R1. The reports of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.X1 and X2. After appreciation of the evidence, the reference court fixed the value at Rs.70,000/- per cent.

6. The State has preferred Cross Objection No.146/2024 in L.A.App.No.528/2022 contending that the value determined in Ext.A5 by the District Level Purchase Committee cannot form the basis for determination of the market value because the same includes solatium and other statutory benefits. The claimants, on the other hand, contended before us that there is no impediment in taking the price fixed by the District Level Purchase Committee and deducting the statutory benefits and carving out the land value alone for the purpose of determining the market value.

7. Heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.

8. Admittedly, none of the claimants were successful before the LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 12 reference court in producing any exemplar in order to enable the reference court to determine the market value of the land acquired in the proper perspective. Therefore, the only option available before the reference court was to redetermine the market value based on the value reflected in Ext.A5 deed in L.A.R Nos.94 & 95 of 2014, and Exts.A1 & A2, in L.A.R No.2/2017 is concerned. It is true that the aforesaid documents are post notification documents, but, at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the negotiation was completed much before the documents were executed and the prices were determined immediately after the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain the cross objection preferred by the State in L.A.App No.528/2022 on the ground that the reliance placed by the reference court to Exts.A1 & A2 and documents No.2557/2012 is erroneous.

9. As regards the methodology adopted by the reference court for fixation of the market value, we find that the reference court has not correctly approached the issue. The value under Ext.A5 deed in LAR Nos.94 & 95/2014, no doubt, reflects the land value together with solatium and interest. In terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 30% solatium and 12% interest are awarded. Therefore, we can safely arrive at the market value, if we deduct the same from LA.App. Nos.170/2019, 182/2019, 528/2022 & CO 146/2024 in LA.App 528/2022 13 Rs.1,67,000/-. The exact formula to be applied is “ x / 1.42 “ [1,67,000 /

1.42 = 1,17,605.63 = rounded off to Rs.1,17,605/-]. The reference court awarded Rs.80,000/- per cent in LAR Nos.94 & 95 of 2014 and Rs.70,000/- per cent in LAR No.2/2017 as the market value, whereas by adopting the aforesaid formula, we find that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,17,605/- per cent.

10. Accordingly, we allow these appeals preferred by the claimants and refix the land value at Rs.1,17,605/- (Rupees One lakh Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred and Five only) per cent and dismiss the Cross Objection preferred by the State. All the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits, including proportionate costs. Sd/- DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.TK SHAJAHAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

4.2.2022 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery, respectively. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: L.A.App.Nos.182/2019 & 170/2019

7. Heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments