Kerala High Court
Susheel Kumar A vs The State Of Kerala on 13 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:42177
1
LAA No.46 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 46 OF 2022
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN LAR
NO.247/2011 BY HE IIND ADDL.SUB COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03.08.2021
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
SUSHEEL KUMAR A.
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. KUTTAPPAN, 'NAVAMI', KUZHIVILA,
KARIMANAL P. O., NOW RESIDING AT AKKARA
VEEDU, KALPADA, VATTAPARA P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695028.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU
SHRI.S.ABHILASH
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/STATE & RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:42177
2
LAA No.46 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
This appeal preferred by the claimant impugns the
judgment and decree dated 03.08.2021 of the II nd Additional Sub
Court, Thiruvananthapuram in LAR No.247 of 2011.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this
appeal are as follows:
An extent of 7.60 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.428/7,
Block No.18, Sub 7 of Attipra Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk
belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purposes of a Sewage
pumping station under JNNURM of KSIDP projects at the instance of
the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. The notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 16.06.2009 and
possession of the land was taken on 07.03.2011. Thereafter, the Land
Acquisition Officer passed the award on 05.02.2011.
3. In the award aforementioned, the Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs.2,19,506/-
per Are relying on a sale deed No.4377/2006 of Kazhakuttam SRO
dated 26.10.2006, where the value of the property was shown as
Rs.1,91,387.95/- pr Are (Rs.77,485/- per Cent). In a reference
preferred at the instance of the appellant, although the appellant
2025:KER:42177
produced Annexure A1 sale exemplar - Document No.3026/2008
pertaining to a property situated one kilometre away from the
appellant's property, but located in the same village and sold at a
price of Rs.20 lakhs per Cent, the sale exemplar was not relied upon
by the reference Court, which found that the said sale exemplar
pertained to property, which was situated in Pallippuram Village and
not in Attipra Village. The Reference Court also felt that merely
because Ext.C1 Commission Report indicated that the property
mentioned in Ext.A1 exemplar and the acquired property were similar
in their location, insofar as the property in Ext.A1 exemplar was
situated very close to the National Highway, and the property of the
appellant was situated 500 metres away from the NH, the two
properties could not be treated as similar. The Reference Court,
therefore, proceeded to fix the market value at Rs.4,00,000/- per Are
by taking into account the above factors and granting an escalation
from the value of Rs.2,19,506/- per Are fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer.
4. Before us, Sri.Siju Kamalasan, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would point out that the
Reference Court erred in assuming that Ext.A1 sale exemplar
pertained to property that was situated in Pallipuram Village. As a
matter of fact, on a perusal of the said document, we find that, that
property was also situated in Attipra Village. More importantly, we
find that while the property in Ext.A1 exemplar was situated merely
2025:KER:42177
100 metres away from the National Highway, the property of the
appellant was situated only 500 metres away from the NH Road and
about 1 kilometer away from the property covered by Ext.A1
exemplar. The Commission Report also indicates that the properties
are more or less similar in nature. We do find, however, that while in
the revenue records, the property in Ext.A1 exemplar is shown as dry
land, the property of the appellant is classified as wetland.
5. In the light of the aforesaid factors, which serve
to distinguish the property of the appellant and the property in Ext.A1
exemplar, we feel that if we reduce the value in Ext.A1 exemplar by
50% and then apply a reduction factor taking note of the differential
status of the land (wetland) belonging to the appellant, then we can
fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,88,400/- per Are.
This would be by taking 50% of Rs.30,94,680/- per Are and then
applying a reduction factor so as to get the corresponding value of
wetland and then applying a further reduction factor so as to take into
account the differential distance from the National Highway of the
acquired land. The computation as above would be in accordance
with the principles of 'guesstimation' suggested by the Supreme Court
in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ( NOIDA) v.
Harnand Singh (deceased) Through Lrs and Others [(2024)
SCC Online SC 1691].
2025:KER:42177
6. Accordingly, we allow this LA Appeal, by refixing
the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,88,400/- per Are. The
appellant shall be entitled to a refixation of compensation on the
aforesaid basis. He shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits
including proportionate costs, flowing from the revised fixation of the
market value.
While the Registry can draw up and deliver the revised
decree in terms of the judgment to the appellant/claimant who has
filed the appeal as an indigent person, after computing the balance
court fee payable, we make it clear that the State shall on its part,
while depositing the enhanced compensation, deduct the Court Fee
payable on the enhanced amount and deposit only the balance amount
before the Reference Court.
sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
das
