Kerala High Court
Sheik Moideen vs The District Collector on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13131 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 K.P.PREM KUMAR, S/O. M.KRISHNAPPA, BHOOMIKA,
M.P.NIVAS, OPP. CHURCH, HOSABETTU,
MANJESHWAR POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 PRAPULLA, W/O. LATE LOKAYYA KONDANA,
4/57/4 SHARADA NAGARA, MADOOR, MANGALORE DAKSHINA
KANNADA, KOTEKAR, KARNATAKA.
3 PRAMILA SHETTY, W/O. SHIVANAND SHETTY,
SURAKSHA HOUSE, KAIBATTAL 4TH CROSS, KADRI,
MANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
4 PRADEEP KUMAR SHETTY, S/O. VITTALA SHETTY,
DEEPA 2-114C, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL,
MUDIPU KURNAD POST, BANTWAL TALUK, KARNATAKA.
5 M.P.IBRAHIM, S/O. POCKER HAJI, SADIKA MANZIL,
NEAR SALES TAX CHECK POST, HOSANGADI,
BANGRA MANJESHWAR, MANJESHWAR,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
MOHANAN P.G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, PIN-671121.
2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY),
ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD, PIN-671121.
3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY),
UNIT I, ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD, PIN-671121.
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
-2-
4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673529.
BY ADVS. MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).12598/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 12598 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SHEIK MOIDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.PALLI KUNHI,
MELANGADI HOUSE, NEAR DINESH BEEDI DEPOT, BANGRA
MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 323.
BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, PIN 671 121.
2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), ANANGOOR,
KASARAGOD, PIN 671 121.
3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), UNIT I,
ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD, PIN 671 121.
4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 529.
BY ADVS. MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).13131/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
-4-
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.13131/2021, 12598/2021]
The petitioners in these two cases - which
have been heard together on account of the
analogous nature of the facts and circumstances
pleaded and similarity in the reliefs sought for -
are stated to be owners of certain properties
which have been acquired for the purposes of
National Highway 66.
2. According to the petitioners, though they
are entitled to valuation of their buildings
standing in their properties by the 'Plinth Area
Method', the Authorities have now adopted the
'detailed valuation method'; and, therefore, that
they have approached the competent Authority for
measuring their property under the former method.
The petitioners say that, however, their request
has not been acceded to by the competent
Authorities, thus constraining them to approach
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
this Court through this writ petition.
3. The petitioners therefore, pray that the
competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) be
directed to conduct a detailed valuation of their
properties and for such purpose, to set aside the
valuations impugned in these writ petitions.
4. I must say upfront that when I had
considered this case on 26.08.2021, the following
order has been issued noticing that, in certain
cases, the Authorities insist that only the
'detailed valuation method' will be adopted; while
in others, they insist that the 'plinth area
method' alone will be used:
"The learned Standing Counsel for the
NHAI, Sri.Mathews K.Philip, asserts that as
a rule, the competent Authority follows the
'detailed valuation method' and that it is
only when owners raise objections, that the
'plinth area method' for valuation is
adopted.
2. When I hear Sri.Mathews K.Philip,
as afore, it creates some confusion
because, when this Court had considered two
other cases on 25.08.2021, namely W.P.(C)
Nos.16436/2021 and 16438/2021, judgments
were delivered on the basis of the
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
submissions made by the learned Standing
Counsel of NHAI in those cases, that the
Authority, in normal cases, adopt only the
'plinth area method' for valuation and not
the 'detailed valuation method'.
3. Obviously, the submissions made
before this Court by two different counsel
appearing for the same Authority on two
different dates are antipodic and opposing
each other."
5. When this matter was called today,
Sri.Mathews K.Phillip - learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the National Highways Authority of
India, submitted that, as a matter of Rule,
'Plinth Area Method' is adopted in Kerala because
the valuation is being done by the CALA in
conjunction with the PWD. He submitted it is true
that earlier, in Kannur, Kasaragod and Kozhikode
'Detailed Valuation Method' had been followed; but
that as a matter of uniformity, now only 'Plinth
Area Valuation' is accepted. He submitted that,
therefore, he cannot stand in the way of the
petitioners seeking revaluation of the property
under the 'Plinth Area Method', particularly when
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
the CALA has earlier completed such process under
the 'Detailed Valuation Method' in these cases.
6. The learned Government Pleader -
Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that the petitioners
cannot seek valuation of their buildings in a
particular manner as a matter of right, and that
it is up to the competent Authority to adopt the
most feasible method in the given circumstances.
She submitted that, as is clear in these cases,
the CALA has already valued the buildings and
properties of the petitioners under the 'Detailed
Valuation Method' and, therefore, that they cannot
pray, as had been done by them in this writ
petition, to have the same be done again through
the 'Plinth Area Method'.
7. When I hear the learned Government Pleader
as afore, I must say that I cannot find favour
with her because of the earlier submissions made
by Sri.Mathews K.Philip. It is luculent from his
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
submissions that, as a matter of rule, the 'Plinth
Area Method' is now being used and not the
'Detailed Valuation Method'.
8. In any event of the matter, I fail to
understand how the Authorities can assert that a
holder of the property cannot seek valuation of
his/her building in a particular manner, since I
cannot find any such inhibition in law. I do not,
however, propose to speak affirmatively on this
issue since, as I have already said above,
Sri.Mathews K.Philip submits that now in Kerala
it is the 'Plinth Area Method' which is being
adopted as a matter of rule.
In the afore circumstances, I allow these writ
petitions and set aside the impugned valuations;
with a consequential direction to the 2nd
respondent - Special Deputy Collector, in both
these cases, to revalue the buildings of the
petitioners under the 'Plinth Area Method', after
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
following due procedure and after affording them
necessary opportunity of being heard; thus
culminating in appropriate orders thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore
exercise is completed and the necessary valuation
settled, the building of the petitioners standing
in the property now acquired shall not be
demolished, since otherwise, the entire process
will get frustrated.
At this time Sri.Ramesh Nambisan - learned
counsel for the petitioners intervened to say
that, in fact, prior to the impugned valuations,
'Plinth Area' valuation had been done earlier, but
that it had been subsequently jettisoned. However,
Sri.Mathews K.Philip - learned Standing Counsel
for the NHAI, contested this by saying that there
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
were errors in the first valuation, thus
constraining the CALA to conduct second valuation
adopting the 'Detailed Valuation Method'.
In view of the afore disputation of facts, I
do not think that this Court should consider the
afore submissions of Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan; and
resultantly the directions above issued will
stand.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13131/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT
FIXED UNDER THE 'PLINTH AREA' METHOD
AND THE DETAILED VALUATION METHOD.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.12.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.1.2021
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI
ACT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE
RTI ACT DATED 8.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.701/21 L.A.
(NH) DATED 20.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE 4TH
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C) Nos.13131 & 12598 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12598/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE
ORIGINAL AMOUNT FIXED UNDER THE 'PLINTH
AREA' METHOD AND THE DETAILED VALUATION
METHOD
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.12.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
RTI ACT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.1.2021
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE
RTI ACT DATED 8.2.2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.701/21 L.A.
(NH) DATED 20.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT.
Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT
OF THE SHOP ROOMS ACQUIRED FROM THE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
