Kerala High Court
Benny Chacko vs The State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:55177
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24635 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
BENNY CHACKO
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O CHACKO
ALANOLICKAL HOUSE,MANKULAM P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685565.
BY ADV SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LAND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
(CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE)
IDUKKI PIN 685 603.
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA & LR)
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU,
IDUKKI PIN 685 603.
2025:KER:55177
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
2
4 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5 THE PROJECT MANAGER
KSEB MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, MANKULAM
P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 565.
BY ADV
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED, SC
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55177
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
3
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
For implementation of Mankulam Hydro-Electric Project, the State Government accorded sanction to acquire land from Mankulam Village in Idukki District. Special Tahsildar, Thodupuzha was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. The Project Manager of the Hydro-Electric Project acquired 46.69 hectares of land through negotiated purchase. Purchase committee presided by the Collector conducted several meetings from 22.12.2010. Some land owners surrendered their land based on the negotiations.
2. According to the petitioner, he was in possession of land in Sy.No.534/40-8 having an extent of 399.6 cents. In a meeting held on 13.10.2011, as evident from Ext.P2, ₹20,000/- per cent was proposed as the price of the property of the 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 4 petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that in the same meeting, the purchase committee decided to grant 30% solatium and 12% additional land value to other land owners of the same area. Petitioner was therefore subjected to discriminatory treatment, he alleges in the writ petition. Petitioner submitted representation to the District Collector and also to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the purchase committee headed by the District Collector fixed much higher value for the properties of many others. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that for properties falling within the same category, the respondents agreed to grant much higher prices. Several instances were pointed out by the learned counsel referring to the documents produced. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 9 SCC 356] and Krishnan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1043] the learned counsel submitted that 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 5 the respondents are liable to be directed to grant 30% solatium, 12% additional land value, as well as 12% interest on the enhanced land value to the petitioner for the land acquired from him
3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner and four other land holders willingly surrendered their land prior to the purchase committee meeting conducted on 13.10.2011. Petitioner did not raise any dispute regarding the land value offered in the meeting held on 13.10.2011. Contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no increase in land value was granted in the meeting held on 13.10.2011. Higher value was offered to some others, because they demanded higher amounts and their lands were not similar . The petitioner, on the other hand, signed a consent letter. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after signing the consent letter and executing a sale deed, the petitioner is estopped from claiming higher land value.
2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 6
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that there was no acquisition of properties for the project as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner also strongly negotiated with the purchase committee and rate for his land was fixed as ₹20,000/- per cent after negotiations. The petitioner agreed for the price and title deed was executed by the petitioner in the Sub Registrar's Office, Devikulam on 29.12.2012. A total amount of Rs.88,84,849/- was received by the petitioner towards the value of the land and structures in it. The Board has produced a copy of the title deed along with their counter affidavit as Ext.R4(a). It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the Board also took possession of 23.20 cents of non-patta land under Sy.No.697/15 possessed earlier by the petitioner and two others by giving an ex-gratia amount of ₹46,400/-. An agreement was executed for the said purpose on 29.12.2012. The learned counsel submitted that the contention of the petitioner that a higher price was paid for 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 7 properties falling within the same category as that of the petitioner was not correct. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had executed the title deed in 2012. He had received the agreed price also. Much later in 2016, he filed this writ petition. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is highly belated and not at all maintainable.
5. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had given consent for providing his property to the KSEB at the rate agreed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner executed Ext.R4(a) title deed on 29.12.2012. Moreover, he executed an agreement with respect to 23.20 cents of non-patta land also on the same day. This conduct shows that the petitioner agreed for the value fixed during the negotiations by the purchase committee. He therefore, gave the consent and executed the sale deed. It is true that some others did not agree to the values/price proposed for their properties and bargained further.
2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 8 In the case of some others, higher prices were paid. This is sought to be justified by the respondent - Board by stating that the properties for which higher amounts were paid belonged to different categories. However, the petitioner agreed with the purchase committee that he was satisfied with ₹20,000/- per cent.
6. Petitioner has a case that others were paid solatium and additional land value. Hence the petitioner contends that he is also entitled for solatium and additional land value at the rates 30% and 12% respectively. According to the petitioner, denial of those benefits is discriminatory. However, it is to be noted that the land was obtained by the KSEB through negotiated purchase. The KSEB, in its counter affidavit, has explained that in the negotiation process, in order to arrive at a reasonable market value, 30% solatium and 12% additional land value were added and the value thus arrived at was discussed with the land holders. The Board further stated in 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 9 their counter affidavit that the face value of the land possessed by the petitioner was ₹14,000/- per cent and during negotiation, petitioner demanded a higher value and finally agreed for ₹20,000/- per cent. Solatium and additional land value were taken only a tools for negotiation process. Contention of the KSEB is that solatium and additional land value were not provided as such, but calculations were made so to arrive at a price which could be offered to the land holders, considering the amount which might have been payable in addition to the market value of the property, if land acquisition was resorted to.
7. Admittedly, the property of the petitioner was not obtained through land acquisition for the purpose of the Project. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim solatium and other components which are granted under the provisions of the law governing land acquisition. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be of any help to advance the case of the petitioner. The 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 10 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar (supra) was in a case arising from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Likewise, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (supra) was also in a totally different factual background. No doubt, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein is that, in view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. However, the property of the petitioner was obtained by the Board through negotiated purchase and hence, no illegality can be attributed to the process.
8. The petitioner negotiated, demanded a higher amount than the market value and finally agreed for a price. The said price was paid by the KSEB and the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the Board on 29.12.2012. Thus, he parted with the property. Petitioner has no case that any fraud was 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 11 played. He has no case that the sale deed was executed under any threat or coercion. Petitioner did not raise any protest immediately. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, this writ petition was filed only in July 2016, after several years from the date of execution of the Ext.R4(a). Petitioner has not given any reasons for the delay in filing the writ petition. The writ petition is apparently an experimental litigation. I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner in view of the forgoing discussion.
Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj&rp 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 12 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24635/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT PURCHASE LEVEL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 17-08-2011 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT PURCHASE LEVEL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 13-10-2011 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS UBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 05-11-2013 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 16-04-2015 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DISTRICT PURCHASE LEVEL COMMITTEE HELD ON 28-01-2016 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RPERESENTATION DATED02-05-2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 20/06/2018 OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 04/06/2013 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DETAILS OF THE LAND WITH CATEGORIES OF MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT PREPARED BY TAHASILDAR, DEVIKULAM DATED NIL OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 2025:KER:55177 W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016 13 11/08/2012 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 02/11/2012 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23/03/2020 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF PATTA LAND AND NON PATTA LAND TAKEN BY THE KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR THE MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO. 10/12, POWER DEPARTMENT DATED 01/06/2012