Kerala High Court
Mohammedali vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:49715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025/17TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1081 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN W.P(C).NO.203 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
MOHAMMEDALI
AGED 79 YEARS
S/O.LATE KADIRI MASTER, PAKKIYODA HOUSE,
CHETHALATH ISALND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682554
BY ADV.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
BY ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)
BY ADV.SMT.T.A.LUXY
BY ADV.SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
BY ADV.SRI.KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE
BY ADV.SRI.ANZIL SALIM
BY ADV.SRI.SANJAY SELLEN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 1ST FLOOR, KRISHI
BHAVAN, DR RAJENDRA PRASAD RD, MARG, RAJPATH AREA,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
3 THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,
LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, COLLECTORATE,
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 2 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
BY ADV.SRI.R.V.SREEJITH, STANDING COUNSEL
BY ADV.SRI.BONNY BABY
BY SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1082 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 3 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025/17TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1082 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN W.P(C).NO.4432 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 SHAIKOYA SUHRAVARDI
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE AHMED KOYA PADIPURA, SUHRABARD HOUSE,
AMINI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682552
2 SAYED MOHAMMED KOYA P
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.B ATTAKOYA THANGAL PURAKKAD HOUSE,
AMINI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682552
BY ADV.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
BY ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)
BY ADV.SMT.T.A.LUXY
BY ADV.SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
BY ADV.SRI.ANZIL SALIM
BY ADV.SRI.SANJAY SELLEN
BY ADV.SMT.SONIA SHIBU
BY ADV.SRI.KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 1ST FLOOR, KRISHI
BHAVAN, DR RAJENDRA PRASAD RD, MARG, RAJPATH AREA,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI,
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 4 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
3 THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UNION TERRITORY
OF LAKSHADWEEP, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION,
COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
BY SRI.R.V.SREEJITH, STANDING COUNSEL
BY SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE, CGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1081 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 5 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025/17TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1089 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN W.P(C).NO.35537 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
SUBAIDA.U
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.MARCUS IQBAL SADDIQUE E. UMMERODA HOUSE,
KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
BY ADV.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
BY ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)
BY ADV.SMT.T.A.LUXY
BY ADV.SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
BY ADV.SRI.KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE
BY ADV.SRI.ANZIL SALIM
BY ADV.SRI.SANJAY SELLEN
BY ADV.SMT.SONIA SHIBU
BY ADV.SMT.AAMINA RAFEEK
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
JAI SINGH MARG, HANUMAN ROAD AREA, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI, DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF THE
LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
3 THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 6 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, LAKSHADWEEP
ADMINISTRATION, COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
4 SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER LAKSHADWEEP,
KAVARATTI ISLAND, PIN - 682555
5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (LPWD),
CIVIL SUB DIVISION, KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY
OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
BY SRI.R.V.SREEJITH, STANDING COUNSEL
BY ADV.SMT.LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1081 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 7 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025/17TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.1090 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN W.P(C).NO.6775 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS 1, 3 AND 4:
1 ATTAKOYA PATHUMMATHADA
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.LATE SAYYID ABOOSALIH KUNHIKOYA THANGAL,
PATHUMMATHADA HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682552
2 NISAR PATHUMMATHADA
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.HAMZAKOYA P AMINI, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682552
3 SAYED YOUSUF KOYA THANGAL
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, MADALAPPURA, AMINI,
PIN - 682552
BY ADV.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
BY ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)
BY ADV.SMT.T.A.LUXY
BY ADV.SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
BY ADV.SRI.KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE
BY ADV.SRI.ANZIL SALIM
BY ADV.SRI.SANJAY SELLEN
BY ADV.SRI.AKASH GEORGE
BY ADV.SMT.AMJANA MUMTHAZ P.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS AND 2ND PETITIONER:
1 UNION OF INDIA
AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 8 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
2 THE ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR,
KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682555
3 THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UNION TERRITORY
OF LAKSHADWEEP, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION,
COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
4 SAYYID FATHAHULLA MUTHUKOYA THANGAL
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O.LATE SAYYID ABOOSALIH KUNHIKOYA THANGAL,
PATHUMMATHADA HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682552
BY SRI.R.V.SREEJITH, STANIDNG COUNSEL
BY ADV.SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1081 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 9 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.35537 of 2024, 203 of 2025, 4432
of 2025 and 6775 of 2025 are the appellants in these writ appeals that
impugn the common judgment dated 02.04.2025 of a learned Single
Judge in the writ petitions.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals
are as follows:
The appellants had approached the writ court aggrieved by the
fixation of the multiplication factor as 1 [one] for calculating the market
value of the lands situated in Lakshadweep, that were acquired from
them by the Lakshadweep Administration in terms of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act"].
It was their contention in the writ petitions that while the market value
of the lands acquired from them had to be determined in accordance
with Section 26(2) read with the First Schedule to the 2013 Act, the
Land Acquisition Collector had erroneously/arbitrarily taken the
multiplication factor as 1 [one] for calculating the market value, by
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 10 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
ignoring the multiplication factor stipulated in Sl.No.2 of the First
Schedule. Other grounds of challenge, including the legality of the
delegation of the powers of the Appropriate Government to the Land
Acquisition Collector, and the reasonableness of the classification of the
area where the lands were situated as 'urban', for the purposes of
determining the multiplication factor, were also raised in the writ
petitions.
3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petitions,
after rejecting the contention of the writ petitioners regarding the
legality of the delegation of powers of the appropriate Government to
the Land Acquisition Collector and the notification issued by the latter,
proceeded to consider the challenge to the fixation of the multiplication
factor as 1 [one]. The said issue was answered at paragraphs 7 and 8
of the impugned judgment as follows:
"7. The only other question is whether Ext.P5 has been issued in
accordance with the provision contained in the First schedule to the Act.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that going by serial No.3 to the
First Schedule the factor has to be fixed based on the distance of the
project from the urban area and since the Union Territory of
Lakshadweep is not an urban area, the factor cannot be fixed as 'one' as
provided under serial No.3 of the First Schedule. It is submitted that
there has been no consideration of the basis, which is to determine the
factor as per serial No.2 of the First Schedule. It is further submitted that
since the entire Lakshadweep area is in a rural area the multiplication
factor should have been 'two' since no distance can be drawn between an
urban area and rural area in the case of Lakshadweep. The Standing
Counsel on the other hand submitted that the power is available to the
appropriate Government to fix any factor between 1 and 2 and there is no
prohibition for fixing 'one' as the factor. It is submitted that fixing 'one'
as the factor is also justified by the fact that even though the Union
Territory of Lakshadweep is not treated as an urban area for any other
purpose it has all the characteristics of an urban area going by the
density of population and other factors which have been explained in the
counter affidavit. Details of the total population in the total area and the
manner in which it is comparable to urban areas have been explained. It
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 11 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
is stated that the road network density in Lakshadweep is the fourth
highest in India and in terms of other infrastructure facilities,
Lakshadweep has an Airport at Agatti Island and all the Islands of
Lakshadweep are well equipped with healthcare facilities, Government
Educational Institutions and Ships.
8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be
accepted for the reason that there is power available to the appropriate
Authority to fix any factor between 1 and 2 and there is no prohibition to
having 'one' as the factor if there is sufficient justification for the same. If
an urban area is to be determined by the nature of the area and not by
the mere reason that it is called an urban area for the purposes of further
enactments, there can be no objection to fix the multiplication factor as
'one'. I do not find any illegality on the criteria in fixation of the
multiplication factor. No sufficient grounds are made out for warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
4. In the appeals before us, although various contentions are
raised by Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellants,
challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment, the primary issue urged was with regard to the legality and
reasonableness of adopting 1 [one] as the multiplication factor, while
determining the market value of the lands acquired. In particular, it is
pointed out that the First Schedule to the 2013 Act makes a clear
distinction between 'rural' and 'urban' areas, and for determination of
the multiplication factor, they are covered by separate Sl.Nos. under
the Schedule. While Sl.No.3 deals with urban areas, Sl.No.2 deals with
rural areas. It is pointed out that in the notification dated 07.02.2024
published by the Land Acquisition Collector, notifying the multiplication
factor, the power expressly invoked is that under Sl.No.2 of the First
Schedule. The learned counsel therefore contends that the respondents
have virtually admitted that the area where the acquired lands were
situated was a rural area.
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 12 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel, by placing
reliance on the additional documents produced by him through I.A.No.2
of 2025 in W.A.No.1090 of 2025, that while the Union Government has
treated Lakshadweep as a rural area for various welfare schemes, the
guidelines dated 28.12.2017 issued by the Union Government in the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways [MORTH] has, in connection
with land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways
Authority of India Act [NHAI Act], clarified that the multiplication
factor in the case of rural areas in the Union Territories [other than
Puducherry] shall be taken as 2 [two]. It is his submission therefore
that the fixation of the multiplication factor for lands acquired in
Lakshadweep should be taken as 2 [two] instead of 1 [one].
6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.R.V. Sreejith, the learned
counsel for the respondents, relying on the counter affidavit filed to
I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.1090 of 2025, that in an intra-court appeal,
the appellate court ought not to interfere with the impugned judgment
of the learned Single if the view taken therein is a possible one.
Pointing to the documents produced by the appellants in the appeal, it
is submitted that the said documents, not having been produced in the
writ petition, ought not to be looked into for deciding the appeals.
Alternatively, it is contended that the MORTH guidelines issued in
connection with the acquisitions under the NHAI Act cannot apply to
lands in Lakshadweep since there are no highways in Lakshadweep. As
regards fixation of the multiplication factor, he submits that in as much
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 13 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
as the First Schedule to the 2013 Act, under Sl.No.2 therein, confers
the discretion on the Land Acquisition Collector to fix the multiplication
factor between 1 [one] and 2 [two], the fixation of the multiplication
factor as 1 [one] cannot be faulted, as already found by the learned
Single Judge.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through
the pleadings in the appeals, as also the precedents cited before us by
either side. At the very outset, we may observe that we have no doubt
in our minds as regards the limits of the jurisdiction that we are called
upon to exercise. If we did find that the view taken by the learned
Single Judge was a possible view, against the backdrop of the statutory
provisions, we would not have interfered with the same. On the facts of
these cases, while we concur with the findings of the learned Single
Judge on the issue of legality of the delegation of the powers of the
Appropriate Government to the Land Acquisition Collector, we cannot
find it in ourselves to agree with the findings of the learned Single
Judge on the aspect of legality and reasonableness of the fixation of 1
[one] as the multiplication factor in these cases. We also cannot accept
the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that we are
forbidden from looking into the additional documents produced by the
appellant in the appeals. The respondents were given due opportunity
to counter the arguments based on the said documents, and they have
also filed a counter affidavit to the I.A along with which the documents
were produced. Under those circumstances, the appeals have to be
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 14 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
seen merely as a continuation of the lis that commenced before the writ
court.
8. Sections 26(1) and (2) and Sl. Nos.2 and 3 under the First
Schedule to the 2013 Act read as under:
Section 26 (1) and (2):
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.
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 .
(emphasis supplied)
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 15 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of the First Schedule:
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
[See Section 31(2)]
COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS
The following components shall constitute the minimum
compensation package to be given to those whose land is acquired and to
tenants referred to in Clause (c) of Section 3 in a proportion to be decided
by the appropriate Government.
_______________________________________________________________________
Serial Component of compensation Manner of determination Date of
No. package in respect of land of value determination
acquired under the Act of value
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) (2) (3) (4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
2. Factor by which the market 2.00 (Two) based on the distance
value is to be multiplied in of project from urban area, as
the case of rural areas may be notified by the appropriate
Government.
3. Factor by which the market 1 (One)
value is to be multiplied in
the case of urban areas (Emphasis supplied)
9. It is apparent from a reading of the above statutory provisions
that, if an area is found to satisfy the criteria for declaration as an
urban area, then the notification of the multiplication factor would have
been as 1 [one], which is the factor prescribed under Sl.No.3 for urban
areas. When it comes to rural areas, however, it is Sl.No.2 that will
apply and the multiplication factor can be fixed between 1 [one] and 2
[two] based on the distance of the project from the urban area. The
underlined words are to be taken note of, for, it provides the criteria for
choosing a multiplication factor between 1 [one] and 2 [two]. In other
words, if the area of acquisition is situated in close proximity to an
urban area then the multiplication factor would be fixed closer to 1
[one] or as 1 [one] itself. However, as the distance between the area of
acquisition and the urban area increases, the multiplication factor also
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 16 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
has to increase and move towards the other terminus of 2 [two]. The
important aspect to note, however, is that the criteria for choosing a
multiplication factor between 1 [one] and 2 [two], being the distance of
the acquisition area from the urban area, there has to be a notified
urban area from where that distance can be measured. In the appeals
before us, it is the admitted case that there is no urban area notified in
Lakshadweep. Even assuming, as the learned Single Judge did, that the
project area had all the trappings of an urban area, the fact that the
Land Acquisition Collector did not invoke Sl.No.3 that deals specifically
with urban areas, and the multiplication factor for such areas, would
prevent the respondents from adopting the multiplication factor of 1
[one] for the acquisition area in the instant cases.
10. We also take note of the fact that the documents produced by
the appellants clearly indicate that Lakshadweep has been treated as a
rural area for the welfare schemes of the Union Government, as also by
the MORTH for the purposes of determining compensation under the
NHAI Act. Under such circumstances, it would be unreasonable and
unfair to fix a multiplication factor as applicable to urban areas solely
for the acquisition under the 2013 Act. In the absence of a notified
urban area in Lakshadweep from where the distance to the project area
can be measured for the purposes of Sl.No.2 under the First Schedule
to the 2013 Act, the project area had to be treated as a rural area and
the multiplication factor taken as 2 [two]. It might be apposite to note
in this connection that vide notification S.O.425(E) dated 09.02.2016,
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 17 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
the Central Government has notified that in case of rural areas, the
factor by which the market value is to be multiplied shall be 2 [two].
11. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge, to the extent it upholds the fixation of the
multiplication factor as 1 (One) and allow these appeals by quashing
the notification dated 07.02.2024 of the Land Acquisition Collector and
declaring that the appellants are entitled to the fixation of market value
of the lands acquired from them by adopting the multiplication factor of
2 [two] in terms of Sl.No.2 under the First Schedule to the 2013 Act.
The Writ Appeals are allowed as above.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
prp/
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 18 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.1081/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RURAL URBAN
CLASSIFICATION FOR CENSUS, 2021 DATED
04.09.2018.
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 19 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.1082/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RURAL URBAN CLASSIFICATION
FOR CENSUS, 2021 DATED 04.09.2018
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 20 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.1089/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RURAL URBAN CLASSIFICATION
FOR CENSUS 2021 DATED 04.09.2018
W.A.Nos.1081, 1082, :: 21 ::
1089 & 1090/25
2025:KER:49715
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.1090/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RURAL URBAN
CLASSIFICATION FOR CENSUS, 2021 DATED
04.09.2018
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.10.2024
OF THE RTI APPLICATION SENT BY ONE OF THE
ISLANDERS.
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NH-
11011/30/2015-LA DATED 28.12.2017 ISSUED BY
THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EAC-PM WORKING PAPER
SERIES NUMBERED AS EAC-PM/WP/15/2023 DATED
MARCH, 2023
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT NOTE FILE.
ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
NOTE FILE.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
