Kerala High Court
M/S. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
Friday, the 11th day of April 2025 / 21st Chaithra, 1947
WA NO. 229 OF 2025
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 27/12/2024 IN WP(C) 36125/2024 OF THIS COURT
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
M/S. ELSTONE TEA ESTATES LTD. KALPETTA P.O., HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.9 MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE 560027, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
AT P.B. NO.8, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, K.M. MOIDEENKUNHI, PADHOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL P.O.,
KASARAGODE, PIN - 671541
BY ADV. K.BABU THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT, DISASTER
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD AT NORTH KALPETTA
P.O.,, PIN - 673122
5. THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GANDHIPARK,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD,, PIN - 670645
6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( LAND RECORDS), CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA &
SPECIAL OFFICER, PIN - 673122
7. THE TAHSILDAR VYTHIRI TALUK, VYTHIRI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
8. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KALPETTA VILLAGE OFFICE, KALPETTA P.O., PIN -
673122
9. THE GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION SPECIAL OFFICER PUBLIC OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
10. K.M. AHMED NIZAR SON OF LATE T. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, RESIDING AT VILLA
NO.74, SOBHA LIFESTYLE LEGACY, IVC ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU IS
IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENT 10 IN WP(C) 36125/2024 AS PER ORDER
DATED 06.11.2024 IN IA.1/24., PIN - 562110
11. S.L.P. KUNHIBI AGED 75 YEARS W/O LATE T..B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADHOOR
HOUSE, THEKKIL. P.O., KASARGODE -671541, PIN - 671541
12. ARIFA KUNHIMAHIN AGED 46 YEARS D/ O LATE T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI,
PADHOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL. P.O., KASARGODE -671541, PIN - 671541
13. TAHIRA ALI AGED 58 YEARS D/ O LATE T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADHOOR
HOUSE, THEKKIL. P.O., KASARGODE -671541 ( IMPLEADED AS ADDL
RESPONDENTS 11 TO 13 IN WP(C) 36125/2024 AS PER ORDER DATED
06.11.2024 IN IA.2/2024), PIN - 671541
BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP & SPECIAL GOVERNMENT
PLEADER SRI.V.MANU, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.E
UNNIKRISHNAN,SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANILKUMAR & SENIOR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN FOR R1 TO R9
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to order stay of operation and implementation of Exhibits P15 and P16 and
the judgment dated 27-12-2024 in W.P. (C) No.36125 of 2024 to the extent
it holds that the Government is empowered by the DM Act, 2005, for
acquisition of the subject land for permanent rehabilitation of victims of
disaster, pending disposal of the W.A.
This Writ appeal again coming on for orders on along with connected
cases on 11/04/2025, upon perusing the appeal memorandum and this Court's
Order dated 24/03/2025, the court on the same day passed the following:
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.2312/2024/RD DATED 24-9-2024
EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.11/2024/DMD DATED 04-10-2024
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
8-10-2024
EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
8-10-2024
EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF BASIC TAX REGISTER OF
RESURVEY NO.88/1 OF KALPETTA VILLAGE CORRESPONDING TO OLD SURVEY NO.520 OF
KALPETTA VILLAGE.
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. & S. MANU, J.
************************************
W.A. No. 229 of 2025,
W.P.(C) Nos. 12573 of 2025,
14540 of 2025 & 14608 of 2025.
*********************************************
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025.
ORDER
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
There are three writ petitions and one writ appeal in this set of
proceedings. The Writ Appeal is already admitted. Rule in the Writ
Petitions and they are admitted.
2. We have heard Mr. K. Babu Thomas, the learned counsel for the
Appellant/Petitioners, and the learned Advocate General, Mr. K.
Gopalakrishna Kurup, assisted by Mr. S. Kannan and Mr. Hanil Kumar,
the learned Senior Government Pleaders for the State on the question of
grant of interim relief.
3. The interim relief sought by the Appellant/Petitioners is to injunct
the State Government from taking over the possession of the properties
of the Petitioners. The State Government proposes to take possession of
the properties to rehabilitate the homeless victims of the devastating
landslide in the Wayanad region in July 2024 that caused extensive
damage to property and resulted in the loss of several lives. For deciding
the interim arrangement in these proceedings, we are faced with the
rights of a private landowner on the one hand with the urgent
requirement of the speedy rehabilitation of the victims of the Wayanad
W.A. No.229/2025 &
landslide on the other. We now proceed to narrate the background in
brief how the issue has arisen.
4. M/s. Elstone Tea Estate Limited and M/s. Padhoor Plantations (P)
Limited - the Petitioners/Appellant, are companies incorporated under
the Companies Act. They are in possession of certain properties in
different sub-divisions of Survey No.88 (Re-survey No.88/1) of Kalpetta
village, Vythiri, Wayanad district.
5. The Government of Kerala issued order dated 24 September 2024
(Exhibit-P15) alleging occupation of land in M/s. Elstone Tea Plantation
by various foreign companies. On 4 October 2024, the Government of
Kerala issued an order proposing to develop a township on 78.73
hectares of land situated in Re-survey No. 88/1, Block No. 19, which falls
within the Elstone Tea Estates. M/s. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. submitted
representations on 8 October 2024 (Exhibits-P17 and P18) to the State
Authority.
6. Challenging Exhibits-P15 and P16 Government Orders, M/s.
Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. - one of the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.36125
of 2024 on 12 October 2024 seeking a declaration that the State is not
entitled to trespass on any portion of the properties owned by it and
bound to pay compensation for public purpose as stipulated in the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013).
W.A. No.229/2025 &
7. The Respondent - State filed a counter affidavit opposing the Writ
Petition. The State Government also filed a civil suit contesting the
ownership claim of M/s. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. that they are
Government properties. The said suit is pending.
8. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 27 December 2024,
dismissed the writ petition, negating the challenge to the Government
Order dated 4 October 2024, and permitted the State Government to
proceed in terms of the said order to take over the subject property for
the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of landslide victims in
Wayanad. The learned Single Judge directed the State Government to
determine the total amount of compensation to the Petitioner/Appellant
for acquiring the subject properties in accordance with the provisions of
the Act of 2013 and the compensation should be paid to the Petitioner
before taking possession of the land by executing a bond that in the event
the titles of the properties are declared against them in the suits filed by
Respondent No.1 - State, they shall refund the amount of compensation.
Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Petitioner - M/s. Elstone Tea
Estates Ltd. filed W.A. No.229 of 2025.
9. When the Appeal came up for hearing on 21 March 2025, it was
admitted. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner had sought
interim relief to restrain the State Government from taking possession of
the subject property unless compensation is awarded to the Petitioner
under the Act of 2013. It was informed that the State Government has
W.A. No.229/2025 &
determined the amount of compensation at ₹26,56,10,769/-, which
included the value of trees, buildings, as well as tea and agricultural crops.
According to the Petitioners, the amount is meagre compared to the
compensation that would have been arrived at if Section 26 of the Act of
2013 was followed. The learned Advocate General had submitted that
the impugned judgment had already granted liberty to the Petitioner -
M/s. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. - to pursue appropriate remedies in the
event they were not satisfied with the compensation. It was further
submitted that the State was prepared to deposit the amount of
₹26,56,10,769/- in the Registry of this Court, and that rehabilitation
work had to commence without delay, as the inauguration of the project
was scheduled for 27 March 2025. Considering the urgency of the
matter, we permitted the State Government to deposit the amount in the
Registry of this Court and directed it to file additional affidavit in respect
of the said amount with reference to Section 26 of the Act of 2013. We
also permitted the State to take symbolic possession of the property, in
view of the inaugural ceremony and the statement of the Petitioner that
they will not oppose the conduct of the inauguration ceremony. The
aspect of physical possession was left to be considered upon additional
affidavit filed by the State, on the next date of the hearing, for which the
hearing is conducted today.
10. W.P.(C) No.12573 of 2025 was filed on 24 March 2025 by M/s.
Elstone Tea Estates Ltd., challenging the Government Order dated 20
W.A. No.229/2025 &
March 2025 (Exhibit-P20) whereby the amount of ₹26,56,10,769/- was
determined to be paid to the Petitioner - Elstone. The Petitioner
challenged the said order on various grounds, including the contention
that no notice was issued to them in accordance with Section 21 of the
Act of 2013. The Petitioner also sought a direction for payment of
compensation at the market value of ₹6,60,000/- per Are, as determined
in the notification dated 25 March 2023, which was issued with reference
to the Budget Speech for the year 2023-24.
11. In the meanwhile, the State, by order dated 30 March 2025, issued
notification under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 r/w. Rule
4 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995 and
mentioned in the schedule the fair value fixed for Re-survey No.88 in
respect of Kalpetta Village, Wayanad District would be at ₹25,000/- per
Are. Challenging the said erratum notification, W.P.(C) No.14608 of
2025 is filed.
12. Third W.P.(C) No.14540 of 2025 is filed by M/s. Padhoor
Plantations (P) Ltd., the sister concern of M/s. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd.
M/s. Padhoor Plantations, which is in possession of the property in Re-
survey No.88/1 of Kalpetta Village, sought identical relief as the
Petitioner - M/s. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd., to quash the action of the State
Government and restrain it from taking possession of the property
without payment of compensation.
W.A. No.229/2025 &
13. The learned Single Judge directed that the Writ Petitions be heard
along with the pending Appeal, and accordingly, we have heard the Writ
Appeal (already admitted) along with the connected Writ Petitions
(admitted today) on the grant of interim relief.
14. The State has filed additional affidavits in the Writ Appeal. The
State has also placed on record the Project Report of the proposed
Township at Elstone Estate, Kalpetta & Nedumbala in Wayanad.
15. The interim relief sought by the Petitioners is to restrain the State
Government from taking over possession of the subject property without
paying the compensation first to the Petitioners as per the provisions of
the Act of 2013, which, according to the Petitioners should be
determined at ₹6,60,000/- per Are. According to the Petitioners, the
amount of ₹26,56,10,769/-, determined by the State Government, is
minuscule and is contrary to Section 26 of the Act of 2013. According to
the State, the amount of ₹26,56,10,769/- is determined as per the fair
value in the context of Section 26(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 and the
committee constituted by the State Government has determined the fair
value as per Section 26(1)(b) to the tune of ₹66,000/- per Are which will
come to ₹42,50,89,500/- and the State is ready to deposit the difference.
According to the State, it is extremely crucial that possession of the
properties be taken without delay to enable the commencement of the
rehabilitation project.
W.A. No.229/2025 &
16. Under Chapter IV of the Act of 2013, the procedure for
notification and acquisition is provided for. Section 21 refers to the
persons interested, and thereafter under Section 26, the market value is to
be determined by the Collector. The relevant part of Section 26 of the
Act of 2013 reads as follows:
"26. Determination of market value of land by
Collector - (1) The Collector shall adopt the following
criteria in assessing and determining the market value of
the land, namely: -
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale
deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the
area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed
upon under sub section (2) of section 2 in case of
acquisition of lands for private companies or for public
private partnership projects, which is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market
value shall be the date on which the notification has been
issued under section 11.
Explanation 1. - The average sale price referred to in
clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale
deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type
of area in the near village or near vicinity area during
immediately preceding three years of the year in which
such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
W.A. No.229/2025 &
Explanation 2. - For determining the average sale
price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total
number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which
the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken
into account.
Explanation 3. - While determining the market value
under this section and the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1or Explanation 2, any price paid as
compensation for land acquired under the provisions of
the Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be
taken into consideration.
Explanation 4. - While determining the market value
under this section and the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in
the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual
prevailing market value may be discounted for the
purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1)
shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First
Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the
transactions in land are restricted by or under any other
law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land
are not available for the immediately preceding three
years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority,
W.A. No.229/2025 &
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor
price or minimum price per unit area of the said land
based on the price calculated in the manner specified in
sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated
in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body
offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands
have been acquired) as a part compensation, for
acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall exceed
twenty-five percent of the value so calculated under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the
case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no
case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been
acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is
deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-
section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before
initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area,
take all necessary steps to revise and update the market
value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate
in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall
ensure that the market value determined for acquisition
of any land or property of an educational institution
established and administered by a religious or linguistic
minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate
the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice."
***
Therefore, to determine the market value of the land, as far as the present
proceedings are concerned, clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of
W.A. No.229/2025 &
Section 26 of the Act of 2013 are relevant, i.e. the market value
specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for registration of sale deeds
and the average sale price of similar type of land situated in the nearest
village or area.
17. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the fair value
of the land in Re-survey No.88/1 in Kalpetta Village, which is a town
area, was fixed at on 25 March 2023 at ₹6,60,000/-. Numerous sale
deeds have been executed in Kalpetta Town, within a radius of 100 to
1000 metres from the land in Re-survey No. 88/1, based on the fair value
notified on 25 March 2023. The Petitioners have sought to place on
record six sale deeds registered between 9 March 2023 and 5 September
2024, to demonstrate that the fair value as per the Government Order
dated 25 March 2023 has been accepted. The details thereof are given in
the counter affidavit filed by the Petitioners dated 9 April 2025. The
Petitioners contended that the fair value of ₹6,60,000/- per Are was fixed
for the land after discussion and debate in the Legislative Assembly, and
that it was duly reflected in the Kerala Budget for the year 2023-24. The
Petitioners, therefore, have insisted upon payment as per the
Government Order dated 25 March 2023 fixing the fair value at
₹6,60,000/- per Are. The Petitioners have contested the erratum
notification dated 30 March 2025, contending that it was issued only
after the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the interim order
passed in the Appeal, with the intent to overreach the orders of this Court
W.A. No.229/2025 &
and reduce the compensation payable to the Petitioners to a meaningless
amount. According to the Petitioners, the issuance of erratum
notification dated 30 March 2025 is a fraudulent exercise, needs to be
ignored, and therefore, the compensation payable to the Petitioners has to
be determined at the rate of ₹6,60,000/- per Are, in accordance with
Section 23(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. The Petitioners also contend that
even under Section 23(1)(b), the sale deeds placed on record through the
additional affidavit dated 9 April 2025 would show that the amount
offered by the State Government is absurd, and on the other hand, it
corroborates with the rate of ₹6,60,000/- per Are as reflected in the
stamp duty register prior to its alleged illegal modification. The
Petitioners have also contended that the valuation was fixed without
issuing notice to them, as required under Section 21 of the Act of 2013.
18. The learned Advocate General submitted that there is no basis for
the allegation that the erratum notification dated 30 March 2025 was a
fraudulent exercise undertaken only after the orders of this Court were
passed. He contended that the process of modification had, in fact,
commenced on 3 January 2025 itself, when the Village Officer brought
to the notice of the Tahsildar that as regards the subject land in Re-survey
No.88/1, the fair value register reflected a valuation of ₹2,50,000/- per
Are, whereas for the adjoining areas, it is only ₹30,000/- per Are, and this
indicates that there is clearly a mistake in the stamp duty register. This
was then taken forward by the Tahsildar, who referred the matter to the
W.A. No.229/2025 &
Sub-Collector on 28 January 2025. The Sub-Collector, in turn, addressed
a communication to the Collector on 12 February 2025, following which
a meeting was convened, culminating in the issuance of the order dated
25 March 2025.
19. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has permitted
the State Government to take possession of the land in question upon
deposit of the amount as per the Act of 2013. The learned Single Judge
has also stressed upon the need to carry out immediate rehabilitation.
Further, the learned Single Judge has kept the remedy of the Petitioners
to seek enhancement of the compensation determined by the State open.
Therefore, it is clear that since the State Government has determined an
amount under the Act of 2013, it does not mean that the Petitioners
cannot seek enhancement of the compensation determined thereafter.
Even the learned Advocate General has contended that the State is not
objecting to the liberty granted to the Petitioners to seek enhancement of
the compensation on merits, even in these pending proceedings. In this
context, we have examined whether the amount of ₹26,56,10,769/-,
which included the value of trees, buildings, as well as tea and agricultural
crops, initially determined by the State Government and now revised
to ₹42,50,89,500/-, can be said to be absurd or illusory, so as to
prevent the State from taking over possession of the land for
rehabilitation project.
W.A. No.229/2025 &
20. We have examined the records. According to the final fair value
notification published in the Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 6
March 2010, the land in Re-survey No. 88/1 has been classified as
"Garden land with road access" and assigned a fair value of ₹2,50,000/-
per Are. However, the Sub-division 88/1/1 is shown with a fair value of
₹36,000/- per Are, while the sub-divisions from 88/1/2 to 88/151
(excluding wetland) have been given fair values ranging between
₹24,000/- and ₹30,000/- per Are. It is placed on record that in the draft
notification of fair value which was earlier published in the Kerala
Gazette (Extraordinary) on 5 May 2008, no value was assigned to Re-
survey No. 88/1, however, Survey No. 88/1/1 was classified as "Garden
land with road access" and assigned a fair value of ₹36,000/- per Are. The
Sub-divisions from 88/1/2 to 88/151 were also included under the same
classification, with proposed fair values ranging from ₹24,000/- to
₹30,000/- per Are. As per the procedure, objections were to be
considered and resolved after the publication of the draft notification and
before issuing the final notification. The State has contended that the
draft fair value list was prepared in a digital format. The corrections made
in response to the objections were also incorporated in the digital format.
A letter dated 23 February 2010 in the same file shows that the corrected
CDs received from the Tahsildars of Wayanad district were forwarded to
the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Inspector General of
W.A. No.229/2025 &
Registration. The State contends that the figure of ₹2,50,000/- is the
result of a clerical error in data entry.
21. According to the State, a site inspection was carried out, as reflected
in the order dated 25 March 2025. The inspection revealed that the land
in Re-survey No. 88/1 is a large expanse of garden land bounded by the
Wood Land Estate to the north, forest land to the east, the Kalpetta
Bypass to the west, and lands in Survey Nos. 120, 121, and 122 to the
south. Sub-divisions numbered from 88/2 to 88/151 fall within the
boundaries of Survey No. 88/1. The State contends that during the
inspection, it was observed that the lands falling under sub-divisions
88/6 to 88/31 and 88/148 - small plots adjacent to the Kalpetta Bypass -
were assigned a value of only ₹30,000/- per Are, despite their
advantageous location and smaller size. In contrast, the larger land in
Re-survey No. 88/1 was assigned a disproportionately high fair value of
₹2,50,000/- per Are. The State has placed the details of the fair value in
the draft list and the final list is presented below:
"Village: Kalpetta Block No.19
Sl.No. R.S. R.S. Sub Fair Value as Fair Value as Classification by
No. Division per Draft per final use
number Notification notification
(Rs. Per Are) (Rs. per Are)
Garden Land with
1 88 1 Note seen 2,50,000
road access
Garden Land with
2 88 1/1 36,000/- 36,000/-
road access
W.A. No.229/2025 &
Garden Land with
3 88 1/2 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
4 88 1/3 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
5 88 1/4 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
6 88 1/5 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
7 88 1/6 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
8 88 1/7 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
9 88 1/8 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
10 88 1/9 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
11 88 1/10 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
12 88 1/11 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
13 88 1/12 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
14 88 1/13 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
15 88 1/14 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
16 88 1/15 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
17 88 1/16 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
18 88 2 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
19 88 3 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
W.A. No.229/2025 &
Garden Land with
20 88 4 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
21 88 5 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
22 88 6 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
23 88 7 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
24 88 8 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
25 88 9 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
Garden Land with
26 88 10 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
11 to 137
Garden Land with
27 88 (except wet 30,000/- 30,000/-
road access
land)
138 to 151
Garden Land with
28 88 (except wet 24,000/- 24,000/-
road access
land)
This table of the fair value of surrounding lands is as per the notification
issued in the Gazette. This table shows that the fair value of the Kalpetta
Village is ₹2,50,000/-. But, except for Re-survey No.88/1, the fair value
for the remaining properties fall within the range of ₹24,000/- to
₹36,000/- per Are, whereas in the case of Re-survey No.88/1, an
additional digit is stated to have been added by error thereby inflating the
value to ₹2,50,000/- per Are.
W.A. No.229/2025 &
22. The contention of the Petitioners is that erratum notification dated
30 March 2025 is a fraudulent exercise to overreach the orders of the
court. The record show that by communication dated 3 January 2025 the
Village stated that the fair value register reflected a valuation of
₹2,50,000/- per Are, whereas for the adjoining areas, it is only ₹30,000/-
per Are, and this indicates that there is clearly a mistake in the stamp duty
register. Tahsildar referred the matter to the Sub-Collector on 28 January
2025. The Sub-Collector, in turn, addressed a communication to the
Collector on 12 February 2025, following which a meeting was
convened, culminating in the issuance of the order dated 25 March 2025
and then the erratum Notification on 30 March 2025. Therefore, the
documents on record, prima facie, show that the action of modification
commenced on 3 January 2025 much earlier than the orders passed.
Though there is a lack of co-ordination, and negligence at the level of
State Government officers, it does appear that, in the context of court
cases, when the records were examined for valuation, the State found that
there was a mistake and process for its rectification had commenced prior
to the order was passed by the Court.
23. Based on the above material, the stand of the State is that the
assessed value of ₹2,50,000/- for Re-survey No.88/1 is nearly ten times
higher than that of other sub-divisions within the same re-survey
number. Going by the amount of ₹25,000/- as per the erratum
notification dated 30 March 2025, which was purportedly issued to
W.A. No.229/2025 &
correct the earlier valuation of ₹2,50,000/-, the State contends that the
erroneous last digit 'zero' was inadvertently added and has now been
rectified. In the affidavit filed by Respondent No.4 - the District
Collector, pursuant to the order dated 24 March 2025, it was stated that
the fair value of the property comprised in Re-survey No. 88/1 was
mistakenly shown as ₹2,50,000/- per Are, whereas the actual value was
₹25,000/- per Are. The fair value of the properties was increased on five
occasions by the Government, and it was was finally enhanced through
SRO No. 420 of 2023, dated 25 March 2023. The mistake in showing
the fair value of the property comprised in Re-survey No.88/1 went
unnoticed and was carried over in the subsequent revised notifications
also. Thus, in the notification dated 25 March 2023, it was recorded as
₹6,60,000/- per Are. Along with the affidavit of the District Collector,
minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2025 to approve the draft BVR
for land acquisition is also produced. In the meeting, it was explained by
the Special Tahsildar that the fair value of the property comprised in Re-
survey No.88/1 was shown erroneously. Therefore at this stage, the case
of the State Government that there was an error in the final notification
cannot be said to be an absurd proposition.
24. As regards the valuation under Section 26(1)(b) of the Act of 2013,
the learned Advocate General, relying on the report and the affidavits,
contended that similar garden lands in the nearby vicinity, though having
fair value ranging from ₹21,800/- to ₹30,000/-, were significantly smaller
W.A. No.229/2025 &
in size and were inspected for the purpose of determining the fair value.
In the affidavit the State has contended that for the purpose of
determining compensation, all registered transactions of land in Kalpetta
Village and its surrounding areas over the three years preceding 4
October 2024 were examined. Out of these, only eight transactions
involved lands comparable to the land under acquisition. It is stated that
the acquired land is a plantation held continuously by a single owner for
nearly 160 years and only similar types of plantation land were
considered relevant for comparison. It is the case of the State that a site
inspection of the properties in these eight documents was conducted by
the Special Tahsildar. Later, a team constituted by the District Collector,
through proceedings dated 4 March 2025, also reviewed the report of the
Special Tahsildar, carried out an inspection, and confirmed the similarity
of the lands covered in those eight documents. The Assistant Executive
Engineer of the PWD, Kalpetta submitted a valuation report for all
buildings and structures located on the acquired land. The Principal
Agricultural Officer of Wayanad submitted a valuation of the agricultural
improvements, including tea bushes, present on the land. According to
the State, based on these inputs, the total compensation amount was
assessed at ₹26,56,10,769/-, in compliance with Sections 26 and 29 of
the Act of 2013.
25. The Petitioner has argued that the Government had earlier notified
the fair value of the subject land as ₹6,60,000/- per Are, and therefore,
W.A. No.229/2025 &
compensation should be based on this value, as applicable to land in Re-
survey No. 88/1, Block No. 19 of Kalpetta Village. As noted above,
according to the State, a clerical error occurred in publication of the fair
value of the land comprised in Re-survey No.88/1 which was carried
forward in the subsequent revisions also and was shown as ₹6,60,000/- in
the notification dated 25 March 2023. This error was discovered recently
by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued an erratum notification on
30 March 2025 to correct it. It is also stated that from the fair value
notification dated 25 March 2023 that the Revenue Department had
created approximately 151 sub-divisions under Re-survey No. 88/1 in
Block No. 19 for the purposes of effecting mutation and collecting land
tax based on registered transactions. Except for sub-division 88/1/1,
where the fair value is ₹95,040/-, the fair values assigned to other sub-
divisions are in the range of ₹63,360/- to ₹79,200/- per Are. According
to the State thus, the incorrect value of ₹6,60,000/- was shown only for
Re-survey No. 88/1 due to a clerical oversight. Additionally, the learned
Advocate General has submitted that there is an ongoing dispute
between the shareholders of the Petitioner company.
26. Thus, primarily the case of the State is that, the Petitioners are
taking advantage of a clerical error in the digital database where a zero
came to be added and are putting forward an inflated claim. According to
the State, the said instance relied upon by the Petitioners is for smaller
parcels of land and the lands are not comparable. We have found, prima
W.A. No.229/2025 &
facie, as the material on record shows, the version of the State that the
amount of compensation determined as per the Act of 2013 has been
deposited cannot be rejected outright.
27. This brings us to the second aspect regarding the urgency expressed
by the State Government to take over the possession of the subject land.
The State Government has placed on record and also filed additional
affidavits regarding the steps to be taken with respect to the natural
calamity that occurred on 30 July 2024 in Wayanad district. The calamity
resulted in the loss of 266 lives. Thirty-two persons were reported
missing. More than four hundred beneficiaries have been identified for
rehabilitation. The plan for the rehabilitation began in mid-August 2024.
Meetings were held to finalise the list of beneficiaries and the
rehabilitation proposal. Following stakeholder consultations and based on
the number of identified beneficiaries, it was decided that residential
units would be constructed on plots of 7 cents each at Elstone Estate.
Subsequently, through a Government Order dated 28 February 2025,
the Government resolved to acquire Elstone Estate exclusively for the
implementation of the first phase of the Wayanad Township Project. It is
stated that, in accordance with this decision, the State Government has
initiated the takeover of 64.4705 hectares of land located at Elstone
Estate in Kalpetta Village of Vythiri Taluk to execute the model township
project intended for the rehabilitation of the affected families. The
W.A. No.229/2025 &
proposed township includes 410 residential buildings, each to be
constructed on a 7-cent plot.
28. Therefore, it is clear that the commencement of work cannot be
delayed anymore. It is extremely crucial that the rehabilitation work is
not postponed. It is stated in the affidavit that a detailed project schedule
has been prepared based on the revised proposal. Residential units are
proposed to be completed by 180 days from the date of commencement
of work. The entire township project has to be completed in 540 day. A
formal inauguration of the first phase of construction took place on 27
March 2025 and the work has to be completed by 15 March 2026. As per
the Project Schedule, the construction of dwelling units has to be
completed by 25 October 2025. The State, therefore, contends that
64.4705 hectares of land in Survey Nos. 88/158 (New), 88/159(New)
88/62, 88/66, 88/137 in Block No. 19, in Kalpetta Village in Vythiri
Taluk in Wayanad District has to be taken possession immediately to
facilitate the rehabilitation activities. The Affidavit of the State sets out
the urgency for commencing the project immediately which is as follows:
a. The timely commencement of civil works at Elstone
Estate, Kalpetta is critical to the success of the project
and the safety of the displaced families.
b. The South-West Monsoon typically begins in early June
in Wayanad District, with pre-monsoon showers starting
as early as in mid-May and with heavy, sustained rainfall
continuing through July and August.
W.A. No.229/2025 &
c. This region is geologically fragile, with steep slope and a
history of slope failures and landslides - as tragically
evidenced in the disaster of 30 July 2024.
d. Early execution of site development, land clearance,
earthworks, retaining walls, road formation, and the
laying Foundation essential before the monsoon sets in.
e. Delaying these activities until or during the rainy season
would result in the following critical consequences:
(i) In accessibility of work areas: Heavy rainfall leads to
flooding, softening of terrain, and disruption of access
roads, thereby halting movement of construction
equipment and materials.
(ii) Geotechnical Instability: Sloped terrain under saturation
becomes prone to erosion and landslip, increasing risk to
machinery and personnel.
(iii) Damage to Initial Works: Partially completed
excavations, trenches, or foundations are vulnerable to
being washed away or weakened, leading to rework and
financial losses.
(iv) Escalation of Costs: Rain-induced delays significantly
inflate project costs due to extended contractor
mobilisation, idle manpower, and loss of materials.
(v) Prolonged Displacement: Families affected by the 2024
landslide remain in rented accommodations. Any delay
directly extends their trauma and hardship, especially
with continued exposure to health and safety risks
during the rainy season.
(vi) Disruption of Procurement and Logistics:
Transportation of materials and mobilisation of
W.A. No.229/2025 &
workforce becomes unreliable during monsoon due to
landslides, roadblocks, and loss of work days.
f. Hence, pre-monsoon mobilisation and initiation of civil
works by April-May 2025 is not merely a planning
target but an emergency requirement for the successful
and timely rehabilitation of the affected population. Any
delay will have cascading effects on the construction
season and overall project delivery timeline.
29. The learned Advocate General has stated that even going by the
amount of ₹66,000/-, the total fair value would come to the tune of
₹42,50,89,500/- and the State Government is ready to deposit the
balance amount of ₹17,77,54,874/- in a separate account maintained in
this Court, and it is open to the Court to permit withdrawal of this
amount by the Petitioners subject to the conditions to be imposed. An
amount of nearly ₹42 Crores is available to the Petitioners towards the
cost of shifting the machinery or making payments to their workmen.
30. Therefore, as stated earlier while passing the interim order, it is
necessary to balance the equities arising from these two competing
interests. Ultimately, even going by their contentions, the right of the
Petitioners is to be computed in terms of money. Though the Petitioners
contend that they would be required to shift their operations to another
location and that their workers would have to be paid, it cannot be said
that the amount deposited is a meagre amount. Also, we cannot be
unmindful of the plight of the unfortunate homeless victims of the
natural disaster who are awaiting rehabilitation. The issue of
W.A. No.229/2025 &
enhancement of monetary compensation is kept open and has not been
foreclosed. This amount is subject to enhancement, and, as submitted by
the learned Advocate General, such enhancement can even be considered
in the present proceedings. In these circumstances, the balance of
convenience lies in permitting the State to proceed with taking possession
of the land for the rehabilitation work.
31. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta v.
State of Maharashtra1, has indicated the approach to be adopted by the
High Court while dealing with interim relief in respect of public projects
in the context of challenges of the individuals to acquisition of land.
Though the facts in that case were slightly different, the relevant
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the approach of the writ
court are as follows.
"10. ......The means of transportation, power and
communications are in dire need of substantial
improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things
very often call for acquisition of land and that too without
any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these
cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition
proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in
the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts.
Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some
cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made.
Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time
has come where the courts should keep the larger public
interest in mind while exercising their power of granting
(1997) 1 SCC 134
W.A. No.229/2025 &
stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is
discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of
interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a
legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for
public purposes, the interests of justice and the public
interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same.
Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar
orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is
equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public
interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the
power under Article 226 -- indeed any of their
discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High
Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition
was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some
legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be
entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded
as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of
compensation payable. There are many ways of affording
appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the
acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress.
To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the
competing interests. ...."
***
32. The State has calculated a certain amount which, according to it, is
in accordance with Section 26 of the Act of 2013. No doubt, the
Petitioners have raised various contentions regarding the quantum of
compensation so determined. However, if the Petitioners succeed, the
amount deposited by the State can be enhanced. The State has also filed a
civil suit regarding the ownership rights. The principle of eminent
domain also needs to be kept in mind. We have found the explanation
W.A. No.229/2025 &
given by the State Government while arriving at the amounts to be
deposited to be prima facie satisfactory. Therefore, while the monetary
claim of the Petitioners can be examined further during the course of
these proceedings, any further delay in commencement of the
rehabilitation project would have serious consequences, not only on the
timeline of the project but also on the lives of the unfortunate victims of
the disaster who continue to await rehabilitation. In such circumstances,
we are of the opinion that the interim relief to restrain the State
Government from proceeding further with the rehabilitation project after
taking possession of the subject property cannot be granted.
33. Accordingly, the following shall be the interim arrangement during
the pendency of the Appeal and the Writ Petitions:
A. The State Government will deposit an amount of
₹17,77,54,874/-, in a separate account maintained
with the Registry of the High Court.
B. Upon deposit of the said amount, it will be open to
the State Government to take physical possession of
the subject property.
C. The Petitioners will be at liberty to withdraw the
amount of ₹26,56,10,769/-, already deposited, as
well as the additional amount of ₹17,77,54,874/-,
upon compliance with the terms and conditions as
may be imposed by the Registry of the High Court
(except the condition of furnishing bank guarantee).
W.A. No.229/2025 &
D. Such withdrawal will be without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties in the pending
proceedings and the Civil Suit.
34. Add the Appeal and Writ Petitions on the board of final hearing in
the week commencing from 7 July 2025.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
S. MANU,
JUDGE
krj/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
11-04-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
