Kerala High Court
Annamma Joseph vs The District Collector on 4 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:39322
1
LA.Appl.No.181 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 14TH JYAISHTA,
1947
LA.APP. NO. 181 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2009 IN
LAR NO.187 OF 2003 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB
COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, HOSDRUG
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS/SUPPLY.CLAIMANTS:
1 ANNAMMA JOSEPH,AGED 85 YEARS
W/O LATE JOSEPH, "KUZHIKATTIL", RAJAPURAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671532.
2 K.J.MATHEW, AGED 72 YEARS,"DEEPTHI
HOUSE",CHERUPA POST,MEDICAL COLLEGE(VIA).
3 K.J.ANNAMMA
W/O P.J.JOS,AGED 60 YEARS,"PATHIPALLIL
HOUSE",CHULLIKKARA,PADIMARUTH POST.
4 MARY JOSEPH
W/O.V.M.BABU,AGED 32 YEARS,"THEKKE VALEL
HOUSE",KAPPIKKAD,KALLARA.P.O,KOTTAYAM.
5 LILLYKUTTY LAWRENCE
W/O JOSEPH LAWRENCE,AGED 57
YEARS,T.I.H.S,NAJNAMARMOOLA,VIDYNAGAR.P.O,
KASARAGOD-
2025:KER:39322
2
LA.Appl.No.181 of 2018
6 CICILY JOSEPH
W/O ADV.N.C.JAMES,AGED 48 YEARS,
"NEENTUKUNNEL HOUSE"SOUTH BAZAR,KANNUR-
7 SHIBY JOSEPH.K
AGED 50 YEARS,"MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE,
AKAPPADAM KANHIRAMKODE.P.O,VADAKKANCHERY-
8 SABU JOSEPH
S/O JOSEPH,AGED 47 YEARS,"ROSAPPALLY
HOUSE",PAINKKARA,KALLAR VILLAGE.
9 BIJU JOSEPH
S/O JOSEPH,AGED 54 YEARS,'ROSAPPALLY
HOUSE",PAINKKARA,KALLAR VILLAGE.
BY ADV SHRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670002.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER
TELECOM,KANNUR DISTRICT-670001.
BY ADV SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39322
3
LA.Appl.No.181 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated
02.12.2009 of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg in LAR No.187 of
2003.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this
LA.Appeal are as follows:
An extent of 0.3260 hectares (80.522 cents) of land owned
by the appellants in R.S.No.437/146/1part old of Kallar Village was
acquired for the purposes of establishing a telephone exchange. The
Section 4(1) notification was published on 22.07.2000. The
possession of the property was taken on 24.09.2003 and the award
was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.03.2003.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market
value of the acquired land at Rs.5,000/- per Cent by placing reliance
on the basic document - Document No.3216/99 of the Rajapuram SRO,
whereby an extent of 18 cents of land had been sold at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per Cent. On a reference at the instance of the
appellants, the Reference Court found that the Land Acquisition
Officer had erroneously arrived at the figure of Rs.5,000/- per Cent
when, going by the base document itself, and the proximity of the
2025:KER:39322
property to the acquired property, the market value could be fixed at
par with that fixed for the property in the base document, ie.
Rs.10,000/- per Cent. The Reference Court, however, chose not to
place reliance on sale exemplars Exts.A1 to A4, that were produced by
the appellants to substantiate their claim for enhancement of the
market value of the land acquired. It is aggrieved by the said fixation
of the market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court that
the appellants are before us in this Land Acquisition Appeal.
4. We have heard Sri.Satheesan Alakkadan, the
learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Mathews K.Philip, the learned
Standing Counsel for the Telecom Department as also
Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the
State Government.
5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we
find that while the Reference Court itself did not grant any
enhancement of the market value of the land, but merely corrected an
apparent mistake committed by the Land Acquisition Officer while
arriving at the market value of the acquired land based on the base
document relied upon by him, there is no justifiable reason given in
the judgment of the Reference Court for not relying on Ext.A1 sale
exemplar - Document No.308/96 of SRO, Rajapuram, whereby 5 cents
of property standing in close proximity (200 metres away) from the
2025:KER:39322
acquired property had been sold at a price of Rs.17,250/- per Cent. It
is relevant to note that Ext.A1 sale exemplar is in relation to a
property which is situated merely 200 metres away from the acquired
property, and the market value shown therein was the value fixed in
1996. Given the fact that the property in Ext.A1 exemplar was
situated along the State Highway, perhaps one could assume that the
value of Rs.17,250/- per Cent would be too high for the acquired
property, which was situated 200 metres away, but by the side of the
Rajapuram - Balal Road, which meets the State Highway, where the
property in Ext.A1 exemplar is situated. In our view, if adjustments
are made to the market value of the property in Ext.A1 sale exemplar,
and the necessary increments as contemplated in the judgment of the
Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr.
[(2008) 14 SCC 745] are applied for a period of three years, then we
can arrive at a reasonable approximation of the market value of the
acquired land for the purposes of fixing the compensation due to the
appellants. Proceeding thus, we feel that the market value of the
acquired land can be fixed at Rs.12,500/- in 1996 and on enhancing
the same at the rate of 7.5% for a period of three years upto the date
of Section 4(1) notification, the resultant figure representing the
market value of the acquired property would be Rs.15,529/-, rounded
to Rs.15,530/- per Cent.
2025:KER:39322
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal by re-fixing the
market value of the acquired property at Rs.15,530/- per Cent. The
appellants shall be entitled to a re-fixation of the compensation due to
them based on the revised fixation of market value in this judgment.
The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits,
including proportionate costs, that flow from the re-fixation above.
We make it clear, however, that the appellants shall not be entitled to
interest for the period of 3011 days, which represents the delay
occasioned by the appellants in filing the appeal before this Court.
The Registry shall ensure that the revised decree in terms
of this judgment is drawn up and handed over to the appellants, only
after receiving the balance court fee if, any payable by the appellants
consequent to the re-fixation effected above.
sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
das
