Kerala High Court
Benny Chacko vs The State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:55177
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24635 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
BENNY CHACKO
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O CHACKO
ALANOLICKAL HOUSE,MANKULAM P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685565.
BY ADV SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LAND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
(CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE)
IDUKKI PIN 685 603.
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA & LR)
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU,
IDUKKI PIN 685 603.
2025:KER:55177
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
2
4 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5 THE PROJECT MANAGER
KSEB MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, MANKULAM
P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 565.
BY ADV
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED, SC
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55177
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
3
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.24635 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
For implementation of Mankulam Hydro-Electric Project,
the State Government accorded sanction to acquire land from
Mankulam Village in Idukki District. Special Tahsildar,
Thodupuzha was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. The
Project Manager of the Hydro-Electric Project acquired 46.69
hectares of land through negotiated purchase. Purchase
committee presided by the Collector conducted several meetings
from 22.12.2010. Some land owners surrendered their land
based on the negotiations.
2. According to the petitioner, he was in possession of
land in Sy.No.534/40-8 having an extent of 399.6 cents. In a
meeting held on 13.10.2011, as evident from Ext.P2, ₹20,000/-
per cent was proposed as the price of the property of the
2025:KER:55177
petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that in the same meeting,
the purchase committee decided to grant 30% solatium and
12% additional land value to other land owners of the same
area. Petitioner was therefore subjected to discriminatory
treatment, he alleges in the writ petition. Petitioner submitted
representation to the District Collector and also to the Hon'ble
Chief Minister. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the purchase committee headed by the District
Collector fixed much higher value for the properties of many
others. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that for
properties falling within the same category, the respondents
agreed to grant much higher prices. Several instances were
pointed out by the learned counsel referring to the documents
produced. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra
[(2020) 9 SCC 356] and Krishnan Kumar v. State of Haryana
[2025 SCC OnLine SC 1043] the learned counsel submitted that
2025:KER:55177
the respondents are liable to be directed to grant 30% solatium,
12% additional land value, as well as 12% interest on the
enhanced land value to the petitioner for the land acquired from
him
3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the
petitioner and four other land holders willingly surrendered their
land prior to the purchase committee meeting conducted on
13.10.2011. Petitioner did not raise any dispute regarding the
land value offered in the meeting held on 13.10.2011. Contrary
to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, no increase in land value was granted in the meeting
held on 13.10.2011. Higher value was offered to some others,
because they demanded higher amounts and their lands were
not similar . The petitioner, on the other hand, signed a consent
letter. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after
signing the consent letter and executing a sale deed, the
petitioner is estopped from claiming higher land value.
2025:KER:55177
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board
submitted that there was no acquisition of properties for the
project as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner also strongly
negotiated with the purchase committee and rate for his land
was fixed as ₹20,000/- per cent after negotiations. The
petitioner agreed for the price and title deed was executed by
the petitioner in the Sub Registrar's Office, Devikulam on
29.12.2012. A total amount of Rs.88,84,849/- was received by
the petitioner towards the value of the land and structures in it.
The Board has produced a copy of the title deed along with their
counter affidavit as Ext.R4(a). It was also submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel that the Board also took possession of
23.20 cents of non-patta land under Sy.No.697/15 possessed
earlier by the petitioner and two others by giving an ex-gratia
amount of ₹46,400/-. An agreement was executed for the said
purpose on 29.12.2012. The learned counsel submitted that the
contention of the petitioner that a higher price was paid for
2025:KER:55177
properties falling within the same category as that of the
petitioner was not correct. The learned Standing Counsel
submitted that the petitioner had executed the title deed in
2012. He had received the agreed price also. Much later in
2016, he filed this writ petition. According to the learned
Standing Counsel, the writ petition is highly belated and not at
all maintainable.
5. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had given
consent for providing his property to the KSEB at the rate
agreed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner executed
Ext.R4(a) title deed on 29.12.2012. Moreover, he executed an
agreement with respect to 23.20 cents of non-patta land also on
the same day. This conduct shows that the petitioner agreed
for the value fixed during the negotiations by the purchase
committee. He therefore, gave the consent and executed the
sale deed. It is true that some others did not agree to the
values/price proposed for their properties and bargained further.
2025:KER:55177
In the case of some others, higher prices were paid. This is
sought to be justified by the respondent - Board by stating that
the properties for which higher amounts were paid belonged to
different categories. However, the petitioner agreed with the
purchase committee that he was satisfied with ₹20,000/- per
cent.
6. Petitioner has a case that others were paid solatium
and additional land value. Hence the petitioner contends that he
is also entitled for solatium and additional land value at the
rates 30% and 12% respectively. According to the petitioner,
denial of those benefits is discriminatory. However, it is to be
noted that the land was obtained by the KSEB through
negotiated purchase. The KSEB, in its counter affidavit, has
explained that in the negotiation process, in order to arrive at a
reasonable market value, 30% solatium and 12% additional
land value were added and the value thus arrived at was
discussed with the land holders. The Board further stated in
2025:KER:55177
their counter affidavit that the face value of the land possessed
by the petitioner was ₹14,000/- per cent and during negotiation,
petitioner demanded a higher value and finally agreed for
₹20,000/- per cent. Solatium and additional land value were
taken only a tools for negotiation process. Contention of the
KSEB is that solatium and additional land value were not
provided as such, but calculations were made so to arrive at a
price which could be offered to the land holders, considering
the amount which might have been payable in addition to the
market value of the property, if land acquisition was resorted to.
7. Admittedly, the property of the petitioner was not
obtained through land acquisition for the purpose of the Project.
Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim solatium and
other components which are granted under the provisions of the
law governing land acquisition. The reliance placed by the
petitioner on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
cannot be of any help to advance the case of the petitioner. The
2025:KER:55177
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar
(supra) was in a case arising from land acquisition proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Likewise, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust
(supra) was also in a totally different factual background. No
doubt, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein
is that, in view of the mandate of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property
save by the authority of law. However, the property of the
petitioner was obtained by the Board through negotiated
purchase and hence, no illegality can be attributed to the
process.
8. The petitioner negotiated, demanded a higher
amount than the market value and finally agreed for a price.
The said price was paid by the KSEB and the petitioner executed
sale deed in favour of the Board on 29.12.2012. Thus, he parted
with the property. Petitioner has no case that any fraud was
2025:KER:55177
played. He has no case that the sale deed was executed under
any threat or coercion. Petitioner did not raise any protest
immediately. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing
Counsel for the Board, this writ petition was filed only in July
2016, after several years from the date of execution of the
Ext.R4(a). Petitioner has not given any reasons for the delay in
filing the writ petition. The writ petition is apparently an
experimental litigation. I do not find any merit in the
contentions of the petitioner in view of the forgoing discussion.
Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj&rp
2025:KER:55177
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24635/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
DISTRICT PURCHASE LEVEL COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD ON 17-08-2011
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
DISTRICT PURCHASE LEVEL COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD ON 13-10-2011
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS
UBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 05-11-2013
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF
MINISTER DATED 16-04-2015
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
DISTRICT PURCHASE LEVEL COMMITTEE HELD
ON 28-01-2016
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RPERESENTATION
DATED02-05-2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 20/06/2018
OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE
COMMITTEE
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING
DATED 04/06/2013
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE DETAILS OF THE LAND WITH CATEGORIES
OF MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT
PREPARED BY TAHASILDAR, DEVIKULAM DATED
NIL OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, 2005
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED
2025:KER:55177
11/08/2012
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED
02/11/2012
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER
DATED 23/03/2020 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF
PATTA LAND AND NON PATTA LAND TAKEN BY
THE KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR THE
MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO. 10/12,
POWER DEPARTMENT DATED 01/06/2012
