[LA.App. Nos.558/2022, 587/2022, 614/2022, 603/2022,
98/2019, 200/2019, 531/2022, 522/2022, 524/2022, 560/2022,
27/2022, 555/2022, 571/2022, 97/2023, 98/2023, 106/2021,
131/2021, 617/2022, 296/2021 & 597/2022
and Cross Objection No.191/2022 in L.A.App No.555/2022]
These appeals have presented before us certain unique facts.
was answered in their favour. The facts are unique in the sense that
Act, 2013 [Act 30 of 2013]. Different market values are fixed for the
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
2. A total extent of 105.27 hectares of land was sought to be
Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation ('KSIDC', for short).
passed on 21.11.2011. Possession was taken on 16.01.2012. The land
& Rs.88,149/-, respectively. The reference court relied on sale deed
No.925/2008 dated 15.4.2008 and refixed the land value at
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Rs.3,83,083/- for category No.2 and Rs.3,55,730/- for category No.3.
3.11.2017. The land acquisition officer followed the categorization for
determined the compensation, accordingly. In these appeals, we are
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
concerned about category Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. The value fixed by the
reference under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013. The reference court
4. Altogether nine references were answered and the State
Sl Appeal by Appeal by LAR Nos. Catego Awarded by Amount
N State requisitioning ry LAO awarded by
o Authority (in Ares) reference
(in Ares)
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
3 LAA Nil LAR No. II 1,28,000/- 5,47,264/-
587/2022 18/2018 VI 35,000/- 4,56,000/-
Submissions on behalf of the State as well as the requisitioning
authority
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.T.K.Shajahan,
raised twofold contentions touching upon the method adopted by the
reference court in respect of these references under the erstwhile
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as under the new Act. The primary
objection taken by the State against the findings of the reference court
is that the reference court erred egregiously in relying on sale deed
No.925/2008 without looking into the value of the land fixed in the
prior deed, which was executed nine months prior to the same.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the land value
is exorbitantly high in sale deed No.925/2008 and therefore, the same
ought not to have been taken by the reference court. The submissions
on behalf of the learned Senior Government Pleader were supported
by Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel appearing for the
requisitioning authority, KSIDC, who pointed out that the reference
court had relied on the aforesaid document and fixed market value at
Rs.2,43,211.72 per Are purely on a guesswork, which was challenged
by the KSIDC in L.A.App. No.76/2017 and the matter was remanded
back. On remand, the claimant failed to adduce any evidence to
substantiate his claim that Ext.A2, sale deed No.925/2008, was
properly valued and in the absence of any evidence, the claimant is
not entitled to the land value fixed by the reference court. In short,
the primary opposition of the State as well as the requisitioning
authority is against reckoning of sale deed No.925/2008.
6. The secondary contention raised by the State as well as by
the requisitioning authority is against the methodology adopted by the
reference court in fixing the market value of the land in respect of the
awards passed under the Act 30 of 2013. The learned Senior
Government Pleader pointed out that in terms of the mandate
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
contained under Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013, the reference court
could not have fixed the market value solely in terms of sale deed
No.925/2008.
Submissions on behalf of the claimants
7. On behalf of the claimants, we have heard Sri.George
Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Sri.V.Ajaykumar, Sri.R.S.Kalkura,
Sri.J.G.Syamnath, Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, Sri.K.Dhruv Kumar,
Sri.J.Harikumar, Sri.R.Sunil Kumar and Sri.K.Siju.
8. Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned
counsel appearing for the cross objector in C.O.No.191/2022, pointed
out that the land acquisition officer and the reference court applied
the belting system incorrectly.
9. Even assuming that the reference court was justified in
accepting the belting system, still according to the learned Counsel,
his clients were entitled to have the land value fixed at Rs.3,55,730/-,
since the category of land was changed by the reference court from
category 5 to category 3, but only an amount of Rs.2,73,631.50 was
awarded. Alternatively, it is contended that despite no evidence being
adduced by the requisitioning authority to disprove the claim of the
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
cross objectors, the reference court went wrong in deducting 50% of
the amount from the value fixed under sale deed No.925/2008.
10. Sri.V.Ajaykumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants would further point out that the acceptance of document
No.925/2008 was no doubt questioned by the requisitioning authority
earlier and the said challenge was accepted by this Court and the
reference was remanded back to Sub Court, Attingal for a fresh
consideration. On fresh consideration once the reference court
accepted the evidence, namely sale deed No.925/2008, on appeal, the
requisitioning authority and the State cannot question the findings in
the absence of any evidence before the reference court.
11. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in L.A.App. No.27/2022 would point out that the reference
court did not fix the land value in terms of sale deed No.925/2008,
despite the land being included in category No.3. Alternatively, all the
learned counsel appearing for the claimants unanimously opposed the
belting system adopted by the land acquisition officer as well as by the
reference court.
12. We have considered the rival submissions raised across
the bar.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Evaluation of the submissions
13. Based on the rival submissions raised across the bar, we
find that multiple issues require to be addressed by this Court
touching upon the validity of document No.925/2008 and also the
methodology adopted by the reference court qua the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Act 30 of 2013.
Belting system
14. The land acquisition officer categorized the land into six
categories as stated above. The categorization or otherwise called as
the belting system is normally adopted by the State in respect of the
determination of the compensation payable under the provisions of the
respective Land Acquisition Act. The categorization or the belting
system, as the case may be, suits to the convenience of the State who
seeks to deprive the right of the land owners under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, since the State can deprive the constitutional
right to hold property only in accordance with law, which mandates a
fair and equivalent compensation. Therefore, if the belting system is
adopted, the State can fix different compensation to different
categories and thereby justify the grant of compensation which would
fall within the domain of fair and equivalent compensation. The
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again frowned upon the State
adopting the belting system when large tracts of land are acquired for
a common purpose. In this case, 105.27 hectares of land is being
acquired for establishment of a "Life Science Park" by the KSIDC.
Though in these appeals we are not concerned about the ultimate
public purpose, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that, essentially,
the State seeks to deprive its citizens of their constitutional right to
hold the property. We find that adoption of belting system is
impermissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Besco
Limited v. State of Haryana [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1071]. Paragraph
No.24 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"24. The subject lands are acquired under one
notification and the plan brought on record evidences
the location and proximity to development in and
around the acquired land. The belting of area for
valuation would be incorrect. We reject the argument
of the State. Since we have not applied incremental
value on the exemplar, we deem it just to determine
uniform market value to the lands under acquisition."
15. In Asraf Ali Vs State of Haryana and ors [(2013)5 SCC 527],
the Supreme Court held that considering the potentiality of the land
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
sought to be acquired, it would not be appropriate to apply belting
system.
16. In Andra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd
Vs G. Mohan Reddy [(2010) 15 SCC 442], the Supreme Court held that
belting system is permissible only when the land in different survey
numbers and in different locations belonging to different owners are
acquired.
17. On consideration of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, we find that the land acquired are
lying contiguously and are acquired for the same purpose under same
notification. Therefore, by adopting belting system, the land owners
will be certainly discriminated. We are definite in our view that the
land acquisition officer as well as the reference court could not have
adopted the belting system.
18. Still further, from the evidence adduced by both parties
especially Ext.B2 group sketch in LAR No.128/2012 evidencing the lie
of the entire land sought to be acquired, we find that the belting
system done by the land acquisition officer as well as by the reference
court was completely improper and unsustainable. Therefore, we hold
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
that the belting system adopted by the land acquisition officer is
unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Determination of the market value
19. The determination of the market value is one of our prime
concern in these appeals. As stated above, the land acquisition officer
adopted different methods to determine the land value/market value
in respect of the lands in same survey number covered by the same
notification, but for the fact that in respect of certain lands, the award
was not passed before 1.4.2013. How far the delay in passing the
award will influence the rights of the claimants, must be seriously
considered by us.
20. Before proceeding to determine, whether the findings of
the land acquisition officer as modified by the reference court in
determining the market value of the land are proper or not, we must
notice certain glaring defects on the side of the State as well as on the
part of the requisitioning authority. The land acquisition officer relied
on the basic deed as sale deed No.2083/2008 dated 15.4.2008. The
claimants, on the other hand, relied on Exts.A2 sale deed No.925/2008
dated 15.4.2008 in which the land value is seen fixed at Rs.5,47,264/-
per Are in LAR No.24/2018. In LAR No.139/2012 in which
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
L.A.App.No.131/2021 preferred by the requisitioning authority arises,
the reference court had fixed the land value at Rs.2,43,211.72 by
judgment dated 17.11.2015. The requisitioning authority preferred
an appeal against the judgment in LAR No.139/2012 dated 17.11.2015
as L.A.App.No.76/2017. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
judgment dated 7.6.2018 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter
back to the reference court for fresh consideration. The Division
Bench of this Court accepted the argument of the requisitioning
authority stating that the market value fixed by the reference court on
a guesswork without looking into the comparability of the land is
unacceptable. It is worthwhile to extract the findings rendered by the
Division Bench in paragraph Nos.5, 6 & 7.
"5. Contention of the appellant is that, the value fixed
based on the guess work made by the reference court has no
basis. It is pointed out that the burden lies totally on the
claimant to prove through convincing materials that the
market value prevailing at the time of acquisition is higher
than the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
According to the appellant, the claimant had failed in
discharging such burden. Since no evidence was adduced
with respect to comparability of the land covered under the
exemplar document produced, we find merit in the
contention that the reference court went wrong in placing
any sort of reliance on Ext.A2, after having been found that
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
there is no evidence to prove the comparability. The
enhancement given based on the guess work, by merely
finding that there existed a steep hike, cannot be sustained
as a judicial approach which is prudent and justifiable.
Therefore we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment
is liable to be interfered with.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the first
respondent/claimant made a request to this court to remit the
matter for a fresh consideration and disposal, based on the
plea that he may be afforded with sufficient opportunity to
prove the aspect of comparability between the property
covered under Ext.A2 document and the acquired property.
It is pointed out that the factual scenario existed at the time
of acquisition is that the prevailing market value was much
higher than what was reflected in Ext.B1 basic document.
7. We take note of the settled legal principle that the courts
dealing with the reference under Section 18 of the Act is at
an obligation to ensure that fair and just compensation is
awarded to the land owners taking into consideration of the
market value prevailing in the locality at the time of
acquisition. In the case at hand, the claimant had produced
Ext.A2 as the best exemplar document and given evidence to
the effect that Ext.A2 reflects the true market value which
prevailed as on the date of acquisition. But, as observed by
the reference court, the value reflected in Ext.A2 as such
cannot be accepted, because there was total lack of evidence
regarding the comparability of the land in the matter of
similarity, proximity, prominence, nature and lie of the land.
In order to ensure complete justice, we are inclined to take a
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
lenient view to accede to the request made on behalf of the
claimants, to afford a further opportunity to adduce proper
evidence before the reference court. This is all the more with
the view that the reference court can be equipped with ample
materials on record to arrive at a just conclusion with respect
to the market value of the land which prevailed in the locality
at the time of the acquisition."
21. On remand, the claimant in LAR No.139/2012 took out an
advocate commissioner, who submitted his report on 4.9.2018 and
examined him as PW2. The reference court found that the claimant
had discharged the burden of proving that the acquired land and the
land covered by Ext.A2 are comparable plots. The findings of the
reference court are recorded at paragraph No.45, which is extracted
hereunder:
"45. All the available evidence on record clubbed with
the unchallenged Ext.C1 report without any iota of doubt
proves that the land in Ext.A2 and acquired land are
comparable plots. Even though the land in Ext.A2 contains a
building, the land value in A2 can be made use to ascertain
the actual market value reflected on the spot. In order to do
comparisons of land in Ext.A1 and A2 deeds, it is brought out
that the only -ve factor attached to acquired land is that the
same is not having a building. Apart from that negativity
related to the lack of a house in the acquired land, the
individual comparisons of land in Ext.A1 and A2 brings a
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
material fact that both are otherwise comparable in all the
remaining plus and minus factors in an equal manner and
therefore, Ext.A2 can be treated as an exemplar deed subject
to depreciation to be provided for the minus factor discussed
above."
Pertinently, we find that no contra evidence was adduced either by the
State or by the requisitioning authority. In fact, it is surprising to note
that in certain cases the requisitioning authority even remained ex
parte.
Impact of the judgment of the Division Bench in L.A.App.No.76/2017
22. During the course of the argument, when we raised a
query regarding the inaction on the part of the requisitioning authority
in adducing evidence before the reference court after remand, the
learned counsel, Sri.P.U.Shailajan, pointed out that even if no evidence
was adduced on the side of the requisitioning authority, it must be
noted that this Court had not accepted the value fixed in sale deed
No.925/2008 and the court below also failed to notice that sale deed
No.925/2008 was executed for a fancy price. Although the
requisitioning authority did not produce the prior title deed mentioned
in document No.925/2008, it has filed an application under Order-XLI
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
23. We are constrained to note that the said plea is untenable for
more reasons than one. The entitlement of the party appealing against
the judgment and decree of the court below to produce additional
documents under Order-XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is guided by sound
principles. What is produced before us is only a photocopy of the
certified copy of the document, which remains inadmissible in
evidence. Even if we are to assume for a moment that the additional
evidence produced can be looked into by us, we find that the same
may not help the requisitioning authority, since they are bound by the
findings rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in
L.A.App.No.76/2017.
24. It must be remembered that the co-ordinate bench in
L.A.App.No.76/2017, while remanding the reference back to the trial
court had confined the consideration of reference to the comparability
of the land covered by sale deed No.925/2008 and the land acquired.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the remand ordered by
this Court in L.A.App.No.76/2017 was a closed remand and not an
open remand entitling the parties to adduce fresh evidence and re-
opening of the entire case. This Court did not accept the fixation of
the land value by the reference court solely on the ground that no
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
evidence was available to compare the land covered by document
No.925/2008 with that of the land acquired. On remand, once the
claimant was successful in adducing further evidence to prove the
comparability of the land acquired by taking out an advocate
commissioner for local inspection, the infirmity attached to document
No.925/2008 no longer exists. It has come out in evidence that no
application under Order-XXVI Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the
requisitioning authority to remit the report of the advocate
commissioner.
25. There is yet another reason as to why we should reject the
contentions of the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. On
an entire reading of the judgment of the Division Bench, we find that
no contention was raised by the requisitioning authority regarding the
acceptability of document No.925/2008 qua the value of the land.
Therefore, we are of the view that the present contention raised by
the requisitioning authority is clearly hit by Explanation-IV to Section
11 of the CPC as well as the principle governing Order-II Rule 2
of the CPC. Therefore, we reject the aforesaid contention.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Determination of the market value of the land
26. Once the objection taken by the requisitioning authority as
well as the State against sale deed No.925/2008 is obliterated, the
necessary corollary is that the market value of the land fixed therein
has to be adopted. Coupled with the fact that prima facie evidence is
available to show the land covered by sale deed No.925/2008 as well
as the land acquired are in the same vicinity, we are inclined to fix the
market value of the land acquired at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are. The
inevitable consequence of setting aside the belting system is that all
notified land owners for acquisition in terms of the notification dated
14.10.2008, are entitled to have the land value fixed at Rs.5,47,264/-
per Are.
Question of parity in compensation
27. We note that only one claimant has preferred a cross-
objection. The claimants in LAR No.128/2012, in whose favour the
reference court answered the reference by changing the category
fixed by the land acquisition officer from category No.5 to category
No.3 and fixing the land value at Rs.2,73,631.50, have come up before
this Court. However, on an analysis of the evidence, since we have
found that the land value is liable to be fixed at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are,
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
in order to maintain parity in compensation, the question is whether
we can ascertain powers under Order-XLI Rule-33 of the CPC to
ensure that all land owners would get the same benefit.
28. In order to appreciate the contentions of the land owners
that they are entitled to the land value fixed at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are,
we must consider the scope of the power of this Court under Order-
XLI Rule-33 of the CPC be invoked to do complete justice.
Scope of the power under Order-XLI Rule-33 of the CPC
29. Order-XLI Rule-33 CPC reads as under:
"ORDER XLI
APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREES
xxx xxx xxx
33. Power of Court of Appeal.--The Appellate Court shall
have power to pass any decree and make any order which
ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such
further or other decree or order as the case may require, and
this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding
that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be
exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties,
although such respondents or parties may not have filed any
appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees
in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one
suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees,
although an appeal may not have been filed against such
decrees:
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order
under section 35A in pursuance of any objection on which the
Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted
or refused to make such order."
The principles governing the invocation of power under Order-XLI
Rule-33 require no elaboration. Though the said power is unlimited,
the exercise of the power under the said provision must be sparingly
used to do complete justice. There is a school of thought that preaches
that the courts should not use the said provision in favour of a person
who has given up his claim or lost, but application of the said principle
in cases involving constitutional rights to hold a property under
Article-300A stands on a different footing.
30. In Banarasi & Ors v. Ram Phal [2003 (9) SCC 606], the
Supreme Court considered the provision and laid down certain
standards under which the said power has to be invoked. It is
worthwhile to extract paragraph 10 of the said judgment, which reads
as under:
"10. The CPC amendment of 1976 has not materially or
substantially altered the law except for a marginal difference.
Even under the amended Order 41 Rule 22 sub-rule (1) a
party in whose favour the decree stands in its entirety is
neither entitled nor obliged to prefer any cross-objection.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
However, the insertion made in the text of sub-rule (1) makes
it permissible to file a cross-objection against a finding. The
difference which has resulted we will shortly state. A
respondent may defend himself without filing any cross-
objection to the extent to which decree is in his favour;
however, if he proposes to attack any part of the decree he
must take cross-objection. The amendment inserted by the
1976 amendment is clarificatory and also enabling and this
may be made precise by analysing the provision. There may
be three situations:
(i) The impugned decree is partly in favour of the appellant
and partly in favour of the respondent.
(ii) The decree is entirely in favour of the respondent though
an issue has been decided against the respondent.
(iii) The decree is entirely in favour of the respondent and all
the issues have also been answered in favour of the
respondent but there is a finding in the judgment which goes
against the respondent."
31 The prime consideration of this Court while considering
the request of the land owners for exercising the said power would be
whether it offends any of the three situations envisaged in Banarasi
(supra).
32. In Prahlad & Others v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 10 SCC
458], the Supreme Court again considered the invocation of the
powers under Order-XLI Rule-33 of the CPC in respect of
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
enhancement of compensation in land acquisition cases and it was
held that the high courts can step in and exercise the power to render
complete justice.
33. When we read the expression "make any order which
ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further
or other decree or order as the case may require,"..... it becomes clear
that the appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or order
which ought to have been passed by the trial court. This would
obviously mean an order which justice of the case requires to be made.
The expression "case" would mean the justice of the case. Obviously,
this power cannot be exercised ignoring the prohibition imposed by
the law.
34. We are also guided by the observation of the learned
Author Mulla on Code of Civil Procedure, 15th edition at page 2647,
wherein the learned author had observed that this rule is modern on
Order-59 Rule-10(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England
and further opined that purpose of this rule is to do complete justice
between the parties.
35. Having spelt out the broad spectrum under which the
power under Order-XLI Rule-33 has to be exercised by the courts, we
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
now proceed to consider the request of the land owners for fixing the
land value in parity.
36. In Ravishankar Prakash Sarma v. State of UP [(2019) 15
SCC 301], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that insofar as the claim
of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the
enhancement of the compensation must be in parity with the amount
awarded in other cases. Since we have already held that the claimants
in Cross Objection No.191/2022 are entitled to a land value of
Rs.5,47,264/- per Are, we are of the view that in the interest of doing
complete justice and in order to protect the constitutional right to hold
property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, we ought to
invoke the power under Order-XLI Rule-33 of the CPC and fix the
compensation at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are for all the non-appealing
claimants who are respondents before this Court in the appeals
preferred either by the State or by the requisitioning authority, as the
case may be.
Cases under the new Act (Act 30 of 2013)
37. Following cases arises under the new Act:
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Appeal by Appeal by LAR No. Categor Awarded Amount
Sl. the State requisitioni y by LAO awarded by
No. ng (per Are) reference
Authority (per Are)
587/2022 18/2018 VI 35,000/- 4,56,000/-
9 LAA No Nil LAR No. IV 91,200/- 5,21,000/-
The primary contention of the State as well as the requisitioning
authority is that the reference court did not take into consideration
the methodology of fixing the market value under Section 26 of the
Act 30 of 2013. The land acquisition officer in these cases also
adopted the categorization and awarded the amounts, which we have
detailed in the table above.
38. We must notice that these cases arise out of the very same
notification dated 14.10.2008 under the erstwhile Land Acquisition
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Act, 1894. The land acquisition officer adopted the criteria of
comparing the sale deeds in the near vicinity of the property sought
to be acquired and fixed the land value. While fixing the land value,
no explicit reasons are assigned as to why document No.925/2008
dated 15.4.2008 was not taken into consideration. Ultimately, because
of the said exercise, the land acquisition officer fixed the value which
came below the value fixed by him in respect of similar lands covered
by the same notification under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
39. Aggrieved by the above fixation, the claimants sought
reference under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013. The reference court
accepted document No.925/2008 and proceeded to fix the land value
at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are, which the State as well as the requisitioning
authority have questioned on the ground that the reference court
ignored the mandate under Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013.
40. In our considered view, the stand of the State as well as
the requisitioning authority cannot be appreciated for multiple
reasons. The conduct of the requisitioning authority leaves a lot to be
desired. It has come out in evidence that the property covered by sale
deed No.925/2008 was purchased by the requisitioning authority in an
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
e-auction conducted by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for
recovery of dues to the State Bank of India . The total sale
consideration paid is Rs.45,10,000/-. However, the learned counsel for
the KSIDC took up a very strange argument before us that the
purchase of the land by the KSIDC was out of sheer compulsion and
therefore, the said value cannot be considered by the reference court.
We find that the stand taken by the requisitioning authority is not only
dichotomous, but also unreasonable. No doubt, the purchase by the
requisitioning authority is post notification, but the reference court
has not fixed the land value in terms of the post notification document
and only concluded that the said purchase gives credence to the land
value fixed in document No.925/2008. We are in perfect agreement
with the findings rendered by the reference court and do not see any
illegality or jurisdictional infirmity which requires interference by us
in exercise of the appellate power.
41. Coming to the contention regarding the fixation of the
market value ignoring the mandate of Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013,
we must note that the said contention is also seriously flawed. Section
26 of the Act 30 of 2013 reads as under:
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
"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, whichever 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.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
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 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as
compensation for land acquired under the provisions of
this 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
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
(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,
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 per cent, 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
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
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."
42. At first blush, it may appear that the argument of the State
that the reference court by fixing the land value at Rs.5,47,264/-
violated the mandate under Act 30 of 2013, however, a closer scrutiny
would reveal that it is not so. The compelling facts disclosed above
would show that there are two sets of proceedings under two different
enactments, i.e., erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Act 30 of
2013, in respect of the properties covered in the same survey number
and covered by one single notification, i.e. 14.10.2008. The question
before us would be whether there can be a differentiation between
two sets of land owners under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and as well as under the new Act, i.e. Act 30 of 2013. No doubt,
the State may argue that in the absence of any lapsing of the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the erstwhile Land Acquisition
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
Act, 1894, it is obliged to follow the procedure under the new Act for
determination of the market value. It is in this context that we are
required to judge the action of the State as to whether it offends the
mandate of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. Article-14 of the
Constitution of India no doubt guarantees its citizens the right of
equality to be treated on par with other citizens. When the property
rights of land owners are being infringed, which is a constitutional
right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the land owners
are entitled to claim protection of Article-14 of the Constitution of
India. [See Nagpur Improvement Trust and another Vs Vithal Rao and
other [(1973)1 SCC 500]].
43. Still further, Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013 envisages a
situation where the market value is not determined in respect of the
lands for the purpose of acquisition. In this case, the notification for
the land acquisition under both the Acts is one and the same, and the
properties are also covered under the same survey number. Therefore,
it passes one's comprehension as to how the State could differentiate
between two sets of land owners i.e. under the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as under the new Act, Act 30 of 2013.
When the reference court or the High Court determines the market
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
value in respect of a land covered by the same notification, it is
immaterial as to whether the subsequent proceedings for
determination of the compensation is under the erstwhile regime of
land acquisition or under the new regime. Therefore, it must be held
that there can be only one market value in respect of the properties
covered under the same notification, irrespective of subsequent
proceedings for determination of the compensation. To hold otherwise
would certainly create two different classes of land owners which will
offend Article-14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we hold that
the reference court was perfectly justified in fixing the land value at
Rs.5,47,264/- per Are.
44. Lastly, we are required to deal with yet another
incongruous situation. The reference court accepted the belting
system adopted by the land acquisition officer and fixed different land
values based on the categorization done by the land acquisition officer.
No doubt, the reference court has enhanced the compensation even
adopting the categorization. However, since we have held as above
that the categorization or the belting system adopted by the land
acquisition officer is not permissible, we will have to see to what
extent the land owners are entitled to be compensated.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
45. Since we have held that the fixation of the market value of
the land covered by LAR No.24/2018 at Rs.5,47,264/- is perfectly legal
and justified, by invoking the powers under Order-XLI Rule-33 of the
CPC, we restore parity in compensation for all land owners who are
respondents before us in these appeals preferred either by the State
or by the requisitioning authority.
46. As an upshot of these discussions, we are of the considered
view that the appeals preferred by the State as well as by the
requisitioning authority are liable to be dismissed. While dismissing
the appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority, we are inclined
to impose costs, especially in the light of the fact that the requisitioning
authority despite being granted an opportunity to adduce evidence
before the reference court, either chose to remain ex parte, or
did not produce any evidence to substantiate their claim,
but still ventured to prefer appeals before us questioning
the compensation granted by the reference court. Therefore,
the appeals preferred by the requisitioning authority are
hereby dismissed with costs, which we quantify at Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) to each claimant. The same shall be
recovered by the claimants in due proceedings. L.A.App.No.27/2022
and Cross Objection No.191/2022 are thus allowed re-fixing
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
the land value at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are. The claimants are entitled to
all statutory benefits, including proportionate costs in the cross
objection. By exercising the power under Order-XLI Rule-33 CPC, we
hereby fix the land value of the properties of all the claimants, who
are respondents before us either in the appeals preferred by the State
or by the requisitioning authority at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are. The
claimants/respondents before us would also be entitled to all statutory
benefits under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as
under the Act 30 of 2013.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.,
JUDGE
jg
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 PHOTO COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH NO.
1371/2007 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA DATED
12.7.2007.
Annexure 2 PHOTO COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH NO.
925/2008 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA DATED
15.4.2008.
Annexure 3 PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22.1.2007 SENT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSIDC TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, REF.
KSIDC/TVM/2007/3017.
Annexure 4 PHOTO COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 5.12.2007 GO (MS) NO.
1551/07/INDUS.
Annexure 5 PHOTO COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 15.1.2008 GO (MS) NO.
38/2208/INDUS.
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.1.2023 IN LA
APP.(FILING)NO.616/2022, IA APP.
(FILING)NO.598/2022 AND
R.P(FILING)NO.1053/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.1.2023 IN LA
APP.(FILING)NO.616/2022, LA APP.
(FILING)NO.598/2022 AND
R.P(FILING)NO.1053/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.1371/2007 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA
DATED 12.7.2007
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.925/2008 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA DATED
15.4.2008
Annexure 3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.1.2007
SENT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC TO
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
REF.KSIDC/TVM/2007/3017
Annexure 4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
5.12.2007, GO(MS)NO.1551/07/INDUS.
Annexure 5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
15.1.2008, GO(MS)NO.38/2208/INDUS.
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
L2.L.2023 IN LA APP.
(FILING)NO .676/2022, LA APP.
(FILING)NO. 598/2022 AND R.
P(FILING)NO. T053/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 DATED 12.7.2007 OF SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 DATED 12.7.2007 OF SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure R1-A THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2023
L.A.R NO. 21/2017 PASSED BY THE LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND
SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 DATED 12.7.2007 OF SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure Corrected certified copy of judgment
and decree Dated 26.02.2021 in LAR
No.24/2018 Of Additional District Court
-II Thiruvananthapuram
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 REGISTERED AT SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA DT.12.07.2007
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 DATED 12.7.2007 OF SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 DATED 12.7.2007 OF SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.1.2023 IN LA
APP.(FILING)NO.616/2022, IA APP.
(FILING)NO.598/2022 AND
R.P(FILING)NO.1053/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Annexure 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 DATED 12.7.2007 OF SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.1.2023 IN LA
APP.(FILING)NO.616/2022, IA APP.
(FILING)NO.598/2022 AND
R.P(FILING)NO.1053/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Annexure CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA
DATED 12.7 .2OO7
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.1371/2007 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA
DATED 12.7.2007
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.925/2008 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA DATED
15.4.2008
Annexure A3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.1.2007
SENT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC TO
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
REF.KSIDC/TVM/2007/3017
Annexure A4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
5.12.2007, GO(MS)NO.1551/07/INDUS.
Annexure A5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
15.1.2008, GO(MS)NO.38/2208/INDUS.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.1371/2007 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA
DATED 12.07.2007.
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.925/2008 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA DATED
15.4.2008.
Annexure 3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.01.2007
SENT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC TO
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
REF.KSIDC/TVM/2007/3017.
Annexure 4 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
5.12.2007, G O (MS) NO.1551/07/INDUS.
Annexure 5 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
15.01.2008, G O (MS) NO.38/2208/INDUS.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE VAKALATH FILED BY
K.G.GIRISH BABU, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ELECTRONICS TECHONOLOGY PARKS
IN NO. 128/2012 BEFORE THE SUB COURT,
ATTINGAL THROUGH ADVOCATE LAR
SRI.A.AMANULLA.
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.1371/2007 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA
DATED 12.7.2007 .
Annexure 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH
NO.925/2008 OF SRO, MURUKKUMPUZHA DATED
15.4.2008.
Annexure 4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.1.2007
SENT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC TO
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
REF.KSIDC/TVM/2007/3017.
Annexure 5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
5.12.2007, GO(MS)NO.1551/07/INDUS.
Annexure 6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
15.1.2008, GO(MS)NO.38/2208/INDUS.
2025:KER:11221
L.A.App. 558/2022 & conn
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.1371/2007 REGISTERED AT SRO,
MURUKKUMPUZHA DT.12.07.2007
