Kerala High Court
K.R.Ramachandan vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2024:KER:70535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 638 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2013 IN LAR NO.19
OF 2010 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 PANKAJAKSHI AMMA
D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE, THEVAKKAL,
V.K.C.P.O, PIN-682021, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 VIJAYAN
S/O.PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE,
THEVAKKAL, V.K.C.P.O, PIN-682021,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 CHANDRAN NAIR
S/O.RAMAN NAIR, KAVANAL HOUSE,
KUZHIKKATTUKARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE, THEVAKKAL,
V.K.C.P.O,PIN-682021, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.BABU
SRI.BABU SHANKAR
SRI.K.S.GOPI
SMT.N.SUDHA
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030.
2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) OF BPCL,
AMBALAMUGAL-682302.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.JAI MOHAN
SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA
SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR.GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 636 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2013 IN
LAR NO.18 OF 2010 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,
PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 PANKAJAKSHI AMMA
D/O MADHAVI AMMA, KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE,
THEVAKKAL, V.K.C. PO, PIN-682 021,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 VIJAYAN
S/O.PANKAJAKSHI AMMA
KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE,
THEVAKKAL, V.K.C. PO, PIN-682 021,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU SHANKAR
SMT.N.SUDHA
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
4
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 682030
2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) OF BPCL
AMBALAMUGAL. PIN- 682 302.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.JAI MOHAN
SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA
SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
SR GP - SRI T K SHAJAHAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..174/2015, 176/2015
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 700 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2013 IN LAR
NO.65 OF 2010 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
1 CHANDRAN NAIR
S/O. RAMAN NAIR, KAVANAL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUKARA,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE, V.K.C. P.O.,
THEVAKKAL, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
ADDL.P2 PANKAJAKSHI AMMA.K
W/O. LATE CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE, THEVAKKAL,
V.K.C. P.O, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
ADDL.P3 VIJAYAN@JAYAN
S/O. LATE CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE,
THEVAKKAL, V.K.C. P.O,
KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
ADDL.P4 REENAKUMARI K.C
D/O. LATE CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL ,KUZHIKADU,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE
NOW RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE,
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
6
THEVAKKAL, V.K.C. P.O, PIN - 682 021,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
ADDL.P5 SHEELA K.C
D/O. CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKADU,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK
PINCODE -682 308
(ADDL.P2 TO P5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11.09.2024 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2023)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.BABU
SRI.BABU SHANKAR
SMT.N.SUDHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM-682030.
2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) OF BPCL
AMBALAMUGAL-682302.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 836 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2013 IN
LAR NO.48 OF 2010 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,
PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 K.R.RAMACHANDAN
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE NANIKUTTY AMMA,
KAVANAKUZHI HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT KANNANKARIAL
HOUSE, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ -PO.,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 037.
2 CHANDRAMATHY
AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.NANIKUTTY AMMA,
KAVANAKUZHI HOUSE, KANANKARIAL HOUSE,
CHITTEETHUKARA, CSEZ P.O., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 037;
NOW RESIDING AT SUNSHINE 102, PLOT NO.245,
SECTOR 21, NERUL EAST, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706.
3 K.R. MADHUKUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
KANNANKARIAL HOUSE, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ P.O.,
KAKKANAND, KOCHI; NOW RESIDING AT SHREYAS,
ALANGATTU THARA, MANAPULLIKAVU,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
ADDL.P4. GIRIJA RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
8
RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KANNANKARY HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 037
ADDL.P5. VIDYA RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. LATE K.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KANNANKARY HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 037
ADDL.P6. MIDHUN.K.R
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.LATE K.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KANNANKARY HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O.,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 037.
(ADDL. P4 TO P6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11.09.2024 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022)
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.BOSE
SMT.NISHA BOSE
SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) OF BPCL
AMBALAMUGAL - 682 302
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
9
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SMT.S.PARVATHI
SMT.K.SHARANYA VIJAY
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 37 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2013 IN
LAR NO.49 OF 2010 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,
PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 K.R.RAMACHANDRAN
KAVANAL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KANNANKARIAL HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037.
2 CHANDRAMATHY @ CHANDRIKA
D/O.NANIKUTTY AMMA, KAVANAL HOUSE,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT KANNANKARIAL HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI-682 037,
NOW RESIDING AT SUNSHSIE 102, PLOT NO.245,
SECTOR 21, NERUL EAST, NAVIMUMBAI-400 706.
3 K.R.MADHUKUMAR @ MADHU
S/O.NANIKUTTY AMMA, KAVANAL HOUSE,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, FORMER RESIDENT OF
KANNANKARIAL HOUSE, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ- P.O.,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037, NOW RESIDING AT SHREYAS,
ALANGATTU THARA, MANAPULLIKAVU, PALAKKAD-678 001.
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
11
ADDL.P4. GIRIJA RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KANNANKARY HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 037
ADDL.P5. VIDYA RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. LATE K.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KANNANKARY HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 037
ADDL.P6. MIDHUN.K.R
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.LATE K.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KANNANKARY HOUSE,
CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ - P.O.,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 037.
(ADDL. P4 TO P6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11.09.2024 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022)
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.BOSE
VINOD MADHAVAN
SMT.NISHA BOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM - 682030
2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) OF BPCL,
AMABALAMUGAL - 682302
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
12
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA
SRI.JAI MOHAN
SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 174 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2013 IN LAR NO.52 OF
2010 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
T.V.JOHN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, CHELATHADATHIL,
MATTAKUZHY, VARIKOLI PO, ERNAKULAM DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SMT.P.S.SREEVIDYA
SRI.M.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM - 682 302
2 THE DEPUTY MANAGER (PROJECT) BPCL (KRL)
AMBALAMUGHAL - 682 302
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
14
JOSON MANAVALAN
B.DEEPAK
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 176 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2013 IN LAR NO.50 OF
2010 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
THOMAS
S/O.VARKEY,
THEKKINETH CHELATHADATHIL,
MATTAKUZHY VARIKOLI P O
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN (SR.)
SRI.K.K.ALIAS
SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
SRI.D.G.VIPIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM
2 THE DEPUTY MANAGER (PROJECT)
BPCL (KRL), AMBALAMUGHAL
SRI.T.P.SHAJAHAN - SR.GP
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
16
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 177 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2013 IN LAR NO.51 OF
2010 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
THOMAS,
S/O.VARKEY
AGED 57 YEARS
THEKKINETH CHELATHADATHIL,
MATTAKUZHY, VARIKOLI P.O.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN (SR.)
SRI.K.K.ALIAS
SRI.D.G.VIPIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM.
2 THE DEPUTY MANAGER (PROJECT)
BPCL, (KRL), AMBALAMUGHAL.
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
18
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR. GP
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,
1946
LA.APP. NO. 254 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2013 IN
LAR NO.47 OF 2010 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
PAULOSE,
S/O.MATHAI
CHELATHADATHIL HOUSE, MATTAKKUZHI,
VARIKKOLI PO, COCHIN.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
SRI.K.K.ALIAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030
2 THE DEPUTY MANAGER (PROJECT)
BPCL (KRL), AMBALAMUGAL - 682 002
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.DEEPAK
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
20
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SR.) - BPCL
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR. GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..636/2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70535
LA.APP. NO.636/2013
& Connected cases
21
JUDGMENT
[LA.App. Nos.638/2013, 636/2013, 174/2015, 176/2015,
177/2015, 254/2015, 37/2014, 700/2013, 836/2013]
Amit Rawal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of nine(9) appeals
preferred by the land owners seeking enhancement of
compensation by assailing the order of Reference Court
decided on different dates.
2. The State Government on the request of the
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited Kerala (BPCL) caused
a notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of 14.2176 Hectors of
land. Land Acquisition Officer(LAO) by taking into
consideration their basic document ie., sale deed bearing
No.5970/2007 dated 13.07.2007 divided the land into four(4)
categories and assessed the compensation of land of those
different categories in the following manner:
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
Category Nature of land Price value per
Are
I Dry land having 2,21,735/-
road frontage
II Garden land 2,09,416/-
III Dry land having 1,97,098/-
accessed to
pathway
IV Wetland anterior / 1,84,779/-
Property having
without access
3. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned
assessment of LAO, land owners sought a reference in respect
of Category Nos.II, III and IV. Besides examining
Commissioner's report Ext.C1 and C2 and five(5) witnesses
on behalf of the respondent both the beneficiary ie., BPCL and
the claimants brought on record the following documents:
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
Claimant's Exhibits
A1 10/12/2009 Certified copy of judgment in
A2 20/01/2010 Certified copy of the writ
petition (civil) No.256 of 2010
filed by the claimants before the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
A3 04/02/2010 Certified copy of the commission
report as per order in IA-
1118/2010 of WP(C)2561/2010
A4 26/05/2010 Certified copy of judgment in
A5 23/06/2008 Certified copy of the sale deed
No.5001/2008 of the SRO,
Puthencruz
A6 23/06/2008 Certified copy of the sale deed
No.5002/2008 of the SRO,
Puthencruz
A7 30/04/2008 Certified copy of the sale deed
No.5982/2008 of the SRO,
Puthencruz
A8 30/04/2008 Certified copy of the sale deed
No.3384/2008 of the SRO,
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
Puthencruz
A9 20/08/2007 Certified copy of the sale deed
No.6977/2007 of the SRO,
Puthencruz
A10 30/04/2012 Original reply issued
A11 20/03/2010 Original certificate issued by the
Special Grade Secretary
Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama
Panchayath.
A12 Certified copy of the DVS of
building No.111/413 B.
Respondent's Exhibits:-
R1 29/07/2010 The reference file in LAR
R2 05/08/2010 The reference file in LAR
R3 22/05/2010 The reference file in LAR
R4 22/05/2010 The reference file in LAR
R5 03/09/2010 The reference file in LAR
Court Exhibits
C1 13/08/2012 Commission Report
C2 01/11/2012 Expert Engineer's Report
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
Claimant's Witnesses
AW1 17/01/2013 Vijayan
AW2 17/01/2013 Viswanathan Achari
AW3 17/01/2013 Ramachandran
AW4 06/02/2012 Adv.Biji Mathew
(Commissioner)
AW5 13/02/2013 Jojo A.V.
Respondent's Witnesses Nil
4. Learned Reference Court enhanced the
compensation of category-II by giving marginal increase to
Rs.3,04,720/- (Rupees three lakhs four thousand seven
hundred twenty only), Category-III to Rs.2,88,256/- (Two
laks eight eight thousand two hundred fifty six only) and
Category-IV Rs.2,72,241/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy two
thousand two hundred forty one only). It is in that
background, the appellants-claimants-land owners are before
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
this Court for seeking enhancement.
5. Learned senior counsel and other counsel
representing the claimants in support of their memorandum
of appeal raised the following submissions:
I. Learned Reference Court did not consider the
market value of similarly situated lands and the documents
produced and marked as Exts.A5 to A9, much less, no
reasoning has been assigned in not accepting or rejecting the
documents.
II. The commissioner's report rather explained
the nature of land referred to in Ext.A9 to be of lower level
and inferior quality than the one acquired for.
III. The belting system should not be adopted as
land has been acquired for expansion and modernization of
BPCL, Kochi refinery, to be used for one purpose and not in
piece-meal. No doubt in case the property in piece-meal is
sold out it would fetch a lesser price but when sold as a whole
would fetch a higher price. The importance of the location and
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
facilities available to the requirement are also the determining
factor for assessment of the fair and justiciable compensation.
In support of the contention relied upon the judgment in
Besco Limited v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC Online SC
1071] as well as Bijender and Others v. State of Haryana
and Another [(2018) 11 SCC 180].
6. On the other hand, Sri.M.Gopikrishnan
Nambiar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BPCL
and learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State
submitted that the belting system as per the finding rendered
in paragraph No.35 of Bijender and Others (supra) is
permissible but always depend upon the nature of land. It has
come on record that all the categories of land had a different
location and value on account of their location and would not
have fetched the same price if sold by the land owners in
open market. In support of the contention relied upon the
Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in
U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. v. Rajendra
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
Bahadur Srivastva and Ors. [1995 Supp (4) SCC 76] and
Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal
and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 188] wherein on examination of
documentary evidence noticing the intonation in the land ie.,
level up and level low, fixation of market value at uniform
rate was not found to be proper and thus urged this court for
upholding the order under challenge.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and appraised the paper books and the record.
8. Ext.A5, is the sale deed dated 23.06.2008 in
respect of land measuring 2 Acres and 14 cents of land. It is
pertinent to mention here that one Acre has 100 cents of land
and 40.85 Ares of land. The basic document noticed by the
Land Acquisition Officer for assessing the compensation of
different categories of land as noticed above was in respect of
8.62 Ares of land. However, that sale deed is five(5) months
before the issuance of Section 4(1) notification whereas
Ext.A9 is two(2) months before. The price of the land vary
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
like the share market. Whenever a new township or an area is
in demand the prices of the land or of the share always
increase either proportionately or exponentially. No doubt the
Reference Court did not take into consideration all the
aforementioned documents ie., Exts.A5 to A9 nor assigned
any reason except the findings rendered in paragraph 32. The
same reads as under:
"32. Relying on Exts.A8 & A9 the learned counsel for the
claimants vehemently argued that the land value shall be
fixed on the basis of the said documents. But on going
through the commission report itself it can be seen that both
the said properties are having the advantage of direct access
to tar road. Admittedly, the means of access to the acquired
land is only a pathway which is not at all sufficient to take a
four wheeler or a heavy vehicle. So naturally there cannot
be any comparison between the said property and the
properties covered by Exts.A8 & A9. So I am of the view that
for fixing the value of the acquired land involved in the
present cases the documents produced by the claimants
cannot form basis."
9. If the aforementioned observations are
accepted, it would mean that the court had followed the
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
belting system which is impermissible in view of ratio
decidendi culled out in Besco Limited case (supra).
Ludhiana Improvement Trust case (supra) was based
upon acquisition of land in a low line area with a depth of 3 to
6 feets and therefore, the acquiring authority was required to
spend lot of amount for that purpose. It is in that context, the
belting system was held to be improper. In U.P.Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad and Ors. (supra), the question involved was
with regard to the interpretation of sub section (2) of Section
50 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act 1894. While dealing
with the aforementioned question of law, in paragraph 47
following observations were given:
47. But this is not the end. Having laid down the law and
having come to the conclusion that the Avas Vikas Parishad
was not a necessary party nor it could have moved an
application for recall of the order passed by the High Court
not only due to the long delay but even because it had no
right in law to file such an application it is proposed to
exercise power suo motu under Article 142 of the
Constitution for sake of justice as the other side of the
picture is disturbing. The claimant had claimed compensation
at the rate of Rs. 15/-per sq. yrd. Yet the Tribunal awarded it
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
at Rs. 16.44 p.as the respondent appears to have moved an
amendment application claiming Rs. 25/- per sq.yrd. which
was allowed. It is not clear at what stage the amendment
application was moved and allowed but assuming it to be so
the finding of the High Court in this regard is worth
extracting :
Therefore, while determining the market rate of the land
conjectures will have to be done. Taking into consideration the
factors, such as nearness to the bye-pass, nearness to the
inhabited area and superiority in fact in location and also
keeping in view the fact that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.
16.54 p.per sq. yard for further land lying in the South of the
bypass and the rates fixed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer for the land falling in three different belts, we are of
the view that the rates for the land for each of the three belts
as specified by S.L.O. in his award should reasonably be fixed
as below:
1. For the land falling in First Belt...Rs. 25 per sq.yd.
2. For the land falling in Second Belt...Rs. 23.50 per sq.yd.
3. For the land falling in Third Belt...Rs. 20 yer sq. yd.
On perusal of the above, it is evident that the aforementioned
findings have come while exercising the power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India and also on the point that
the question of law involved was with regard to
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
interpretation. Therefore, the court was not having the
material ie., the sale deed for the purpose of arriving at a
just, clear and justiciable compensation.
10. In Bijender and Others (supra) while
dealing with fifty nine(59) sale deeds placed on record, it was
found that all the sale deeds were of very small pieces of land
and by considering that factor arrived at a finding in
paragraphs 31 to 35. The same reads as under:
31) Coming first to the question as to whether the Courts
below were justified in applying the "Belting System" for
determining the market rates of the acquired land in
question?
32) We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view
the nature, extent, size, surrounding and location of the
acquired land, the Courts below were justified in applying
Belting System for determining the market rate of the
acquired land.
33) One cannot dispute that the Belting System is a
judicially accepted method for determining the fair market
value of the acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases
when different parcels of lands with different survey
numbers belonging to different owners and having different
locations are acquired which put together comprises of a
large chunk of land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a
compact block.
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
34) The acquired land having a frontage abutting the
highway/main road always has a better value as compared
to the land, which is away from the highway/main road.
Indeed, farther the land from the highway/main road, lesser
the value of such land. In such a situation, where large
pieces of land having different locations are acquired, Belting
System is considered apposite for determining the market
value of the lands. (see - Union of India & Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram
& Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 59 and Andhra Pradesh Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation Limited vs. G. Mohan Reddy &
Ors. 2010 (15) SCC 412).
35) In Belting System, the acquired land is usually divided in
two or three belts depending upon the facts of each case.
The market value of the front belt abutting the main road is
taken to fetch maximum value whereas the second belt
fetches two third or so of the rate determined in relation to
the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper to carve
out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It is again
depending upon facts of each case."
11. On examination of aforementioned findings,
particularly in paragraph 35, it is evident that the belting
system in some case is permissible but that too depend upon
the facts of each case. Coming to the basic document ie., of
13.07.2007 bearing sale deed No.5970/2007 was in respect
of land measuring 8.62 Ares of land and was sold at
Rs.2,46,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty six thousand only) per
Are. The said document has not seen in the light of day
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
before the Reference Court. But while assessing the
compensation for the reason best known by adding certain
percentage prices have been fixed which in our considered
view is not a correct procedure to be followed for the purpose
of considering the plea of enhancement of the compensation.
Time and again proposition of law is being laid down for
considering the enhancement of compensation by taking note
of the sale deeds of area before the notification and few
months after the notification.
12. However, in the instant case, as noticed
above, Ext.A9 is of 20.08.2007 of land measuring 2 Acres and
14 cents of land fetched value of almost Rs.10,09,227/-
(Rupees ten lakhs nine thousand two hundred twenty seven
only) per Are which was sold for total consideration of
Rs.8,75,00,000/-. But while assessing the compensation in
paragraphs 37 to 40, no plausible reasoning much less an
explanation has come forth except for access to the land
which amounted to adoption of belting system which is
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
impermissible. In Besco Limited case (supra) it was held
that the purpose of acquisition is the core issue for
determination of enhancement of land value. We cannot
remain oblivious of the fact that the acquisition of chunk of
land referred to above was for expansion and modernization
of BPCL Kochi refinery, for one use ie., for increasing the size
of already existed refinery. Thus, in such circumstances,
adoption of belting system would be wholly improper.
13. Accordingly, we modify the order under
challenge and assess the compensation of land without
adopting the belting system by applying the yardsticks in laid
down in Besco Limited case (supra) as well as Bijender
and Others (supra) and also taking note of Ext.A9, at the
rate of Rs.10,00,000/- Rupees ten lakhs only) per Are. The
appellants are entitled to all the statutory benefits already
awarded by the Reference court.
If any of the cases, there is a shortfall of the
deficiency or insufficiency of the court fees the appellants are
2024:KER:70535
& Connected cases
given one month time to do the needful. Thereafter, the
beneficiary/State is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation within a period of two(2) months to prevent
recurring interest factor.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
nak
