Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs *Muhammed Kutty on 27 March, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 540 OF 2014
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.03.2013 IN LAR NO.56 OF 2010 OF PRINCIPAL
SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN LA:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA(GENERAL), KOYILANDY.
BY SMT.N.SUDHADEVI - SPECIAL GP
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:
1 *MUHAMMED KUTTY(Legal Heir)
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
* DIED . LR'S IMPLEADED
2 ABDUL AZEESE
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 MUHAMMED ALI
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 *MUHAMMED HANIF
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*DIED LR'S IMPLEADED
5 SAFIA
D/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6 MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
LAA 540/2014 & CO 75/2015
..2..
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
7 NAFEESA
D/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
8 KADEEJA
D/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
9 SAIDALIKUTTY
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
10 JAMALUDEEN
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
11 ABDURAHIMAN
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
12 HAMSA
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
13 ABDUL SALAM
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
14 ABDUL LATHEEF
S/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
15 LAILA UMMA
D/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
16 KUNNATHODI AMINA
D/O. POOLAKODAN MOIDEEN HAJI, RANDATHANI P.O.,
KALPPAKACHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
17 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
IMPLEADED
ADDL.R18 PALLATH NABEESA,
WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 55 YEARS,RESIDING AT
LAA 540/2014 & CO 75/2015
..3..
RANDATHANI,KALPPAKACHERI,MALAPURAM DISTRICT.
ADDL.R19 POOLAKKODAN ANWAR ALI,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, - DO -
ADDL.R20 POOLAKKODAN SELEENA,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 37 YEARS, - DO -
ADDL.R21 POOLAKKODAN ASKAR,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 34 YEARS, - DO - -
ADDL.R22 POOLAKKODAN NIZAR,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, - DO - -.
ADDITIONAL R18 TO R22 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT, VIDE
ORDER DTD 6/11/14 IN IA 1615/14. ADDITIONAL R232 TO R27
IMPLEADED
ADDL.R23 AMINA,
WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 48 YEARS,RESIDING AT
RANDATHANI,KALPPAKACHERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
ADDL.R24 MEHAR BANU,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF, AGED 27 YEARS, - DO -.
ADDL.R25 NAZEEM BABU,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 26 YEAR, -DO-.
ADDL.R26 HAFIZ AZAD,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 21 YEARS, -DO-
ADDL.R27 SHIRAZ SAMAN,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 19 YEARS, -DO-.
ADDITIONAL R23 TO R27 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIIVES OF THE DECEASED FOURTH RESPONDENT, VIDE
ORDER DTD 6/11/14 IN IA 1615/14.
BY ADVS.
G.S.REGHUNATH
P.U.SHAILAJAN
K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024 ALONG WITH CO.75/2015, THE COURT ON 27.03.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
LAA 540/2014 & CO 75/2015
..4..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CO NO. 75 OF 2015
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.03.2013 IN LAR NO.56 OF 2010 OF
PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 2, 3, 5 TO 16 & ADDL.18 TO
27/CLAIMANTS B, C & E TO P:
1 ABDUL AZEES,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 MUHAMMED ALI,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 SAFIYA,
D/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 MOHAMMED MUSTAFA,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5 NAFEESA,
D/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6 KADEEJA,
D/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
7 SAIDALIKUTTY,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
LAA 540/2014 & CO 75/2015
..5..
8 JAMALUDEEN,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
9 ABDURAHIMAN,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
10 HAMSA,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
11 ABDUL SALAM,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
12 ABDUL LATHEEF,
S/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
13 LAILUMMA ,
D/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
14 KUNNATHODI AMINA,
D/O.POOLAKKODAN MOIDEEN HAJEE,RANDATHANI
POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
15 PALLATH NABEESA,
WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 55 YEARS.
16 POOLAKKODAN ANWAR ALI,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 39 YEARS.
17 POOLAKKODAN SELEENA,
D/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 37 YEARS.
18 POOLAKKODAN ASKAR,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 34 YEARS.
19 POOLAKKODAN NIZAR,
S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUTTY,AGED 29 YEARS.
(ALL RESIDING AT RANDATHANI POST,KALPAKALCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DIST.) (OBJECTORS 15 TO 19 ARE THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED MUHAMMEDKUTTY- A
LAA 540/2014 & CO 75/2015
..6..
CLAIMANT.
20 AMINA,
WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 48 YEARS,
21 MEHAR BANU,
D/O.LATE MOHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 27 YEARS,
22 NAZEEM BABU,,
S/O.LATE MUHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 26 YEARS,
23 HAFIZ AZAD,
S/O.LATE MUHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 21 YEARS,
24 SHIRAZ,
S/O.LATE MUHAMMED HANEEF,AGED 19YEARS,
(ALL REISIDING AT RANDATHANI POST,KALPAKANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DIST).
(OBJECTORS 20 TO 24 ARE THE LEGAL REPESENTATIVES OF
DECEASED MOHAMMED HANEEF- 'D CLAIMANT')
BY ADV K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT 17/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA
(GENERAL),KOYILANDY.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KINFRA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI - SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
P.U.SHAILAJAN
G.S.REGHUNATH
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..540/2014, THE
COURT ON 27.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LAA 540/2014 & CO 75/2015
..7..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The land acquisition appeal has been filed by the State
challenging the judgment and decree of the reference court
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect
of an extent of 22 acres and 32.34 cents of land comprised in
Sy.Nos.166/4, 166/5, 167/2 & 168/1 of Beypore Village, which
was acquired for the purpose of setting up of KINFRA Marine
Park at Beypore Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification
dated 28.07.2009. The Land Acquisition officer awarded land
value at the rate of Rs.28,566/- per cent, which was, on
reference, enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- per cent. Aggrieved by
the enhancement of land value awarded by the reference
court, the State has come up in appeal.
2. The respondents/claimants have filed Cross
Objection No.75 of 2015 seeking to refix the compensation
awarded by the reference court at Rs.1,50,000/- per cent.
3. Evidence consists of oral evidence of AW1 & RW1
and documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A4, Exts.X1 & X2 and
..8..
Exts.R1 to R6. Exts.A1 and A2 were sale deeds in respect of
the year 2008 and Ext.A3 is the sale deed of the year 1997.
The reference court rejected Exts.A1 to A3 sale deeds, finding
that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 abut the
national highway, whereas the acquired land does not, and
that, the property covered by Ext.A3 is 4 km away from the
acquired lands. Ext.A4 is a common judgment of the Principal
Sub Court, Kozhikode in LAR No.82 of 2009 and connected
cases in respect of acquisition of land in Nagaram Village for
the purpose of construction of approach road to Kothi-
Pallikandi Bridge, wherein the land value was fixed at
Rs.1,50,000/-. It was found by the reference court that the
lands covered by Ext.A4 have direct road access and are much
closer to the national highway than the land in this case; and
hence, the value fixed in Ext.A4 cannot be fixed in the present
case. However, the reference court treated Ext.A4 as a
guideline for fixing land value and accordingly, enhanced the
land value to Rs.1,25,000/- per cent. The basis land, which
was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, was about 2
km away from the acquired land and there was not even a
pathway to the said land, whereas the acquired property has
..9..
direct road access. Hence, the reference court found that the
basis land cannot be considered for fixing land value in this
case.
4. On a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen
that the acquired properties are having direct road access
with bus service from its two sides, i.e., Gotheeswaram Road
on the eastern side and coastal road on the western side, and
the acquired properties are having commercial and industrial
importance. In Ext.X1 report, the Advocate Commissioner has
stated that the basis land and the acquired lands are not
similarly situated. It is on the basis of the aforesaid reasons,
the reference court has not considered Exts.A1 to A3 sale
deeds for fixing the value of the lands in question, however,
Ext.A4 judgment was taken as the guideline for fixing the land
value, finding that the lands covered by Ext.A4 are similar to
the acquired land in question.
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the
reference court cannot rely on Ext.A4 judgment to fix the land
value after observing that the lands covered by Ext.A4 are
much closer to national highway than the acquired land. It is
further submitted that without placing reliance on any
..10..
documentary evidence, the reference court went on to fix the
land value at a higher rate for a larger extent of land, which is
per se illegal.
6. The appellants do not have a case that the acquired
land does not have commercial or industrial importance. It is
also an admitted fact that the acquired land has direct road
access with bus service. Though the properties covered by
Ext.A4 judgment were for a different acquisition, the
reference court treated the same as a guideline for fixing land
value in the present case since there were no other reliable
documents. Moreover, the Advocate Commissioner stated in
Ext.X2 sketch that the acquired land in question has direct
road access and hence, refused to compare the basis land with
the acquired land, which has direct road access. It was taking
into account the fact that the lands covered by Annex.A4
judgment are much closer to the national highway than the
acquired land in question, the reference court went on to fix
the land value in the present case at Rs.1,25,000/- though the
value fixed for the lands covered by Ext.A4 judgment was
Rs.1,50,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the seventeenth
..11..
respondent/KINFRA placed reliance on several judgments
impugning the enhancement of land value awarded by the
reference court, which have no relevance in the facts of the
case. Merely because the land acquired is larger in extent, the
value of the acquired land cannot be reduced and its
commercial or industrial importance cannot be ignored.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the award
passed by the reference court. The land value fixed by the
reference court appears to be reasonable and well justified.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State as well as the Cross
Objection filed by the respondents/claimants are dismissed.
SD/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
