Kerala High Court
Kollam Corporation vs K.Raveendranathan Nair on 2 April, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
1
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. 74 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.7.2015 IN LAR
NO.101 OF 2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
1 K.RAVEEMDRANATHAN NAIR (DIED)
S/O.P.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, NANI NIVAS,
KOCHUPLAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, MANAGING
TRUSTEE, P.KRISHNA PILLAI MEMORIAL PUBLIC
CHARITABLE TRUST, KOCHUPILAMMOODU, KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI.K.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, AGED
63 YEARS, PAYIGALIL VEEDU, KOZHIKODE, KATTADI
P.O. POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM.
ADDL.A2 PRATHAP R. NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, AVANTI, MUNDAKKAL
VILLAGE, KOCHUPLAMOODU, KOLLAM-691001.
ADDL.A3 PREETHA S, AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, 'THE MANOR', H &
C COMPOUND, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-691001.
ADDL.A4 PRAKASH NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, NANI NIVAS,
KOCHUPLAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691001.
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
2
* THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER
DATED 22.12.2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN LAA 74/2016.
BY ADV SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691
009.
2 CORPORATION OF KOLLAM
KOLLAM - 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
OTHER PRESENT:
R2 BY ADV S SREEKUMAR KOLLAM,
R1 BY SRI.T.K SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..243/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
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. 243 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2015 IN LAR
NO.101 OF 2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT:
KOLLAM CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,
KOLLAM-691001.
BY ADV SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC, KOLLAM
CORPORATION
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 K.RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR (DIED)
NANI NIVAS, KOCHUPILAMMODDU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM,
MANAGING TRUSTEE, P.KRISHNA PILLAI MEMORIAL
PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, KOCHUPILAMMODDU, KOLLAM.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-
691001.
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
4
*ADDL.R3 PRATHAP R. NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, AVANTI, MUNDAKKAL
VILLAGE, KOCHUPLAMOODU, KOLLAM-691001.
*ADDL.R4 PREETHA S, AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, 'THE MANOR', H &
C COMPOUND, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-691001.
*ADDL.R5 PRAKASH NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, NANI NIVAS,
KOCHUPLAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691001.
*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 2.4.2025 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN LAA NO.243/2016
ADDL.R3 TO R5 BY ADV SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
R2 BY ADV.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..74/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
5
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & EASWARAN S., J.
-------------------------------
LA.App. Nos.74/2016 & 243/2016
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S., J.
These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated
23.7.2015 in L.A.R No.101/2003 on the files of the Principal Sub Court,
Kollam.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals
are as follows:
The acquisition in question relates to 45.93 Ares of property comprised
in re-survey Nos.42/109 and 43/101 of Kollam East Village in Kollam
Taluk for the purpose of Kollam Corporation. Notification under
Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on
25.11.1999. The award was passed on 11.2.2003. The land acquisition
officer fixed the land value at Rs.1,40,617.80 per Are. Dissatisfied
with the same, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the
erstwhile Land Acquisition Act and the reference was answered on
3.1.2009 enhancing the compensation. Later, the State preferred
appeal before this Court as L.A.App.No.1537/2009 and by judgment
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
dated 23.12.2009, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set
aside and the matter was remanded back for impleading the
requisitioning authority and to proceed in accordance with law. After
impleading the requisitioning authority, the reference court again by
judgment and decree dated 6.4.2010 answered the reference and
enhanced the compensation @ Rs.1,96,100/- per cent. Aggrieved by
the same, the requisitioning authority filed L.A.App. No.5/2011 before
this Court. By judgment dated 21.2.2012, a Division Bench of this Court
set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the
matter back with opportunity to the requisitioning authority to produce
the five documents, which were produced before this Court in the
appeal. The Sub Court was directed to pass a revised award at the
earliest. After the remand, the reference court, based on the findings
rendered by this Court in L.A.App. No.5/2011, refixed the market value
at Rs.1,76,490/- per cent, by deducting 10% from Rs.1,96,100/-.
Aggrieved by this reduction in the market value, the claimant is in
appeal before us in L.A.App.No.74/2016, while questioning the fixation
of the market value, the requisitioning authority is before us in L.A.App.
No.243/2016.
3. Heard Sri.R.Sathish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-claimant in L.A.App.No.74/2016, Sri.R.Sreekumar
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
Kollam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
requisitioning authority, in L.A.App.No.243/2016 and Sri.T.K.Shajahan,
the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.
4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the
bar, we are of the considered view that the reference court went wrong
in reducing the amount already fixed by it in the earlier proceedings.
The reference court on the basis of the material evidence proceeded to
appreciate the same and fixed the market value at Rs.1,96,100/- per
cent. No doubt, the requisitioning authority questioned the same
before this Court in L.A.App.No.5/2011. One of the prime reason which
weighed the minds of the Division Bench while setting aside the earlier
judgment of the reference court was the lack of opportunity to the
requisitioning authority to adduce evidence to prove that the amount
fixed by the reference court is on a higher side. Although this Court
found that the market value arrived at by the reference court with
reference to Ext.A4 and the oral testimony of AW3 was slightly higher
than the correct market value of comparable property at the relevant
time, the Division Bench did not pronounce its views finally in the
appeal. It was made clear that the issues were not decided in the
appeal finally. It was in the above circumstances, the requisitioning
authority was granted permission to produce additional evidence to
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
prove their claim.
5. On remand, when the reference court was called upon to
appreciate the additional materials thus produced on behalf of the
requisitioning authority, the reference court instead of appreciating the
same, blindly followed the directions contained in the judgment in
L.A.App. No.5/2011 and deducted 10% from the market value fixed in
the earlier round of litigation. According to us, this view cannot be
subscribed by us under any circumstances. Resultantly, although the
inevitable consequences would be that the matter should regain
attention of the reference court once again, we find that the notification
is issued in the year 1999 and nearly 26 years have been passed since
the proceedings for acquisition started, and still, the claimant(s) are not
in a position to receive just and equitable compensation. When we
analyse the predicament of the claimant(s), we are left to ponder over
whether we should entertain the challenge by the requisitioning
authority contending that the amount fixed by the reference court is on
a higher side. We feel that no substantial evidence has been adduced
by the requisitioning authority to prove that even the amount fixed by
the reference court at Rs.1,76,940/- is on a higher side.
6. On contrary, we find that the reference court was not
justified in reducing 10% from Rs,1,96,100/-, which was correctly
2025:KER:31126
LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016
arrived at by the reference court in the earlier proceedings. Even on
remand, we find that the opposing parties failed to adduce substantial
evidence to prove their claim thereby entitling the claimants to have
the market value fixed at Rs.1,96,100/- per cent itself. We have adopted
the aforesaid recourse, especially since the judgment of the Division
Bench in L.A.App.No.5/2011 did not finally pronounce upon the value
of the property.
7. As an upshot of these discussions, we find that the
challenge raised by the requisitioning authority to the value fixed by
the reference court has to fail and consequently, the appeal preferred
by the claimants for enhancement of the market value has to be allowed.
Accordingly, L.A.App.No.243/2016 is dismissed and L.A.App.
No.74/2016 is allowed. The market value of the land acquired is re-
fixed at Rs.1,96,100/- per cent. The claimants will also be entitled to all
statutory benefits and proportionate costs in the appeal.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg
