Kerala High Court
The Administrator vs Anil on 12 February, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:12355
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 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 393 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2017 IN
LAR NO.62 OF 2008 OF THE II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
T.K.VIPINDAS
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT 1 AND 3:
1 ANIL
S/O.VALLASSERY VELAYUDHAN, GURUVAYUR VILLAGE,
NENMINI P.O., GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680101.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR PIN-680001.
BY ADV SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR - FOR R1
SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN - GP - FOR R3
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..394/2017, 395/2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LAA Nos.393, 394
and 395 of 2017
2
2025:KER:12355
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 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 394 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2017 IN
LAR NO.61 OF 2008 OF THE II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE ADMINISTRATOR
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV T.K.VIPINDAS
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 ANIL
S/O. VALLASSERY VELAYUDHAN, GURUVAYUR VILLAGE,
NENMINI P.O, GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 101
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
GURUVAYUR DEVAWOM,GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 101
LAA Nos.393, 394
and 395 of 2017
3
2025:KER:12355
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, PIN 680 001
BY ADV SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR - FOR R1
SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN - GP - FOR R3
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..393/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LAA Nos.393, 394
and 395 of 2017
4
2025:KER:12355
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 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 395 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2017 IN
LAR NO.65 OF 2008 OF THE II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE ADMINISTRATOR
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
T.K.VIPINDAS
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 ANIL
S/O. VALLASSERY VELAYUDHAN, GURUVAYUR VILLAGE,
NENMINI P.O, GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 101.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR,
LAA Nos.393, 394
and 395 of 2017
5
2025:KER:12355
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 101.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.
BY ADV SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR - FOR R1
SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN - GP - FOR R3
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..393/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LAA Nos.393, 394
and 395 of 2017
6
2025:KER:12355
JUDGMENT
[LA.App. Nos.393/2017, 394/2017, 395/2017]
Easwaran S., J.
These appeals arise from the common judgment and decree
passed in LAR Nos.61, 62 and 65 of 2008 on the file of the II
Additional Subordinate Court, Thrissur.
2. The appeals are preferred by the Requisitioning Authority,
namely the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom Board. An extent of
0.0464, 0.0048 and 0.0162 hectares of land comprised in
Sy.Nos.111/21H, 111/1G and 111/2B respectively of the Guruvayoor
Village was acquired for development and security of Guruvayoor
Temple pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile
Land Acquisition Act on 06.03.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer as
per Award No.2/2008 dated 27.09.2008 awarded a total compensation
of Rs.38,32,033/-, Rs.3,95,856/- and Rs.13,36,015/- respectively. The
property was in joint possession of Velayudhan, Babu and Ravunni.
Velayudhan and Ravunni sought reference under Section 18 of the
erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dissatisfied with the market
and 395 of 2017
2025:KER:12355
value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The references were
numbered as LAR Nos.54 to 60, 63 and 64 of 2008. The Reference
Court answered the reference by refixing the land value at
Rs.3,20,007/-. Dissatisfied with the enhancement so granted, Ravunni
approached this Court in LAA No.74 of 2013. This Court by judgment
dated 30.08.2013 allowed the appeal and enhanced the land value to
Rs.4,27,000/- per cent.
3. Thereafter, the present claimant sought reference under
Section 28 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act. The said reference
was declined on the ground of delay. Later, an application was
preferred for reopening the reference and also for condonation of
delay of 1892 days. The said application was allowed on condition
that the claimant will not be entitled for any interest under Section 28
of the Land Acquisition Act from the date on which it was closed till
reopening. The appellant aggrieved by the orders of the Reference
Court reopening the reference approached this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution by preferring OP(C)Nos.2343, 2347 and 2348
of 2016. A learned Single Judge by judgment dated 12.01.2017
dismissed the said original petitions on the ground that sufficient
safeguards have already been made by the Reference Court by
and 395 of 2017
2025:KER:12355
reopening the reference.
4. Pursuant to the dismissal of the original petition, the
Reference Court took up LAR Nos.61, 62 and 65 of 2008 and ordered
that the claimant is entitled to 1/3rd of the land value fixed by the
Reference Court. The Reference Court also ordered that the
claimants are entitled for 9% interest from 28.09.2008 and thereafter
15% till the amount is deposited. It was further made clear that the
interest will not run for the period 15.09.2009 to 02.04.2016.
Aggrieved by the said order, on the assumption that there is a
duplication of the claim and also on the assumption that they are
liable to pay interest beyond the period of deposit of the enhanced
compensation, the appellant has approached this Court through these
appeals.
5. Heard, Sri.T.K.Vipindas - learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.V.V.Nanda Gopal Nambiar - learned counsel for the claimants.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across
the Bar, we are of the considered view that the apprehension voiced
by the appellant is totally misplaced. It is an admitted case that
pursuant to the judgment of this Court in LAA No.74 of 2013, the
and 395 of 2017
2025:KER:12355
appellant deposited the entire compensation at the enhanced rate of
Rs.4,27,000/- per cent.
7. On a perusal of the claim statement filed under Section 28
of the Act, it is revealed at the time of answering of the reference that
at the instance of Babu and Ravunni, the present claimant did not
have the evidence to prove his share over the property. It is precisely
the reason why once this Court answered the reference and enhanced
the compensation, the claimant preferred an application under
Section 28 which was perfectly maintainable. The apprehension
voiced by the appellant is totally misplaced in the sense that the
Reference Court has ordered sufficient safeguards and held that the
claimant is not entitled for interest from 09.07.2009 till 02.04.2016
and the claimants in LAR Nos.61 & 62 of 2008 are not entitled for
interest from 15.09.09 to 02.04.2016. It is also pointed out before us
that in the year 2013, the entire amount is deposited by the appellant,
the Requisitioning Authority, before the Reference Court. If that be
so, we are of the view that the quantum of interest to which the
claimant is entitled is an issue which has to gain the attention of the
Reference Court in an appropriately instituted execution proceedings
and not in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
and 395 of 2017
2025:KER:12355
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. Accordingly,
the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ACR
