Kerala High Court
Indian Medical Association (Cherthala ... vs National Highway Authority Of India on 27 June, 2025
W.P (C) No.12196 of 2022 1
2025:KER:46588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12196 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (CHERTHALA BR),
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. K. SHYLAMMA,
NEAR KUM HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA 688 524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SMT.SNEHA ROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REP. BY DY. GENERAL MANAGER CUM PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NO. 36/414 (III), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PALKULANGARA, TRIVANDRUM 695 024.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (SPL),
LA(NH), COMPETENT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE,
ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
4 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,O/O. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
LANH, CHERTHALA 688 524.
ADDL.R5 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI - 110001
IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.06.2024 IN
WP(C) 12196/2022
W.P (C) No.12196 of 2022 2
2025:KER:46588
R1 BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
ADDL.R5 BY SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
OF INDIA
R2 TO R4 BY GP SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.12196 of 2022 3
2025:KER:46588
"CR"
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) No.12196 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 3 rd
respondent to pass an award in respect of the land in survey No.1/5 of
Thanneermukkom North Village, granting the market value for the land
along with structural value and for a declaration that the petitioner is
entitled to receive compensation as the owner in possession of the land in
survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village and the building therein
on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as
follows: Petitioner is the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Cherthala
Branch, having more than 256 members. The IMA Community Hall is
situated on the land in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village,
and the same is utilized for various medical camps, medical education
programmes, doctors' meetings, etc. The IMA Cherthala Branch office and
the IMA Community Hall were constructed by the petitioner in the year
1983, which is situated by the side of National Highway, NH 66. The land
2025:KER:46588
was originally assigned to the IMA by the Government as a heritable land
as per the provisions of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act,
1960, (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1960") read with Kerala Land
Assignment Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1964") as per
Ext.P1 patta dated 02.08.1983 and Ext P2 Government order. Petitioner
has remitted the land value, and thereafter, the land was assigned to the
petitioner for the construction of the IMA Community Hall. Petitioner
contends that after payment of the land value and after the land was
assigned to the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2, the same became a
private land subject to conditions in Exts.P1 and P2. Petitioner contended
that they have not violated any of the conditions in Exts.P1 and P2, and
therefore, the land should be considered completely under the ownership
and possession of the petitioner. Ext.P3 possession certificate was also
issued in respect of the subject property, and the petitioner is paying land
tax in Thandaper No.696 of Thanneermukkom North Village. Ext.P4
ownership certificate was also issued by the Cherthala Municipality as
proof of the ownership of the building constructed therein.
3. In the year 2018, Ext.P5 notification under Section 3A of the
National Highways Act, 1956, has been issued by the 1st respondent for
acquiring an extent of 3.87 Ares (10 cents) of property in survey No.1/5 of
Thanneermukkom North Village for widening the NH 66. In Ext.P5 itself,
the land in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village is shown as
2025:KER:46588
private property and not as Government land. The petitioner was expecting
an award to be passed in their favour. Later, on enquiry, it was found that
the 3rd respondent competent authority, has not passed any award in
respect of the land, stating that the land in question is a patta land
assigned in favour of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that
the said stand is arbitrary and unjust since, after the land had been
assigned as per the Land Assignment Act on remittance of the requisite
land value as early as in 1983, the petitioner became the owner in
possession of the same. Since the petitioner has not violated any of the
conditions in Exts.P1 and P2, the land can only be treated as private land,
and the petitioner is entitled to compensation towards the acquisition of the
land also. It is in these said circumstances that the petitioner has
approached this Court.
4. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is
contended that even though the above land is assigned land, it is treated
as Government land based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), especially paragraph 3-5-5(v)(a)
which mandates that when people are granted patta/ownership rights on
the land under any law of the State including abadi/assigned land,
compensation would be paid for the structures only on the
recommendation of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(CALA)/State Government and that based on the said guideline, the
2025:KER:46588
petitioner is only eligible to get compensation for the structure in the
acquired land. It is also contended that the assignment of land is with
certain conditions. Based on the above contentions, the 3rd respondent
has sought dismissal of the writ petition. Similar contentions were raised by
the 1st respondent in its counter affidavit.
5. In response to the contention of the respondents, the petitioner
would submit that the guidelines issued by MoRTH cannot have any
binding force superseding the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment
Act and Rules. Petitioner would further contend that in respect of similarly
situated properties which are patta land, awards have been passed
granting compensation for the land value also. To substantiate the same,
the petitioner has produced Ext.P10, which is the true copy of the patta
issued in respect of SNDP Shaka Yogam Branch 2189, and as per Ext.P11
award, compensation has been awarded in respect of the land also. Based
on the same, the petitioner would contend that they alone have been
discriminated in the matter of award of compensation towards land
acquired.
6. I have heard the rival contentions of the respective counsels
appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.
7. Admittedly, the subject land is an assigned land and Ext.P1 patta has
been issued in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P1 patta would
reveal that the land has been assigned on various conditions attached to
2025:KER:46588
the same, which admittedly have not been violated by the petitioner. It is
also not in dispute that the patta has been issued after payment of the land
value fixed by the authorities. The property has been mutated in the name
of the petitioner, and tax was also paid. Ext.P3 certificate would reveal that
the property is in the possession of the petitioner, and the building therein
is also in the ownership of the petitioner. In Ext.P5 notification under
Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 also, the property has been
treated as private land. Going by the provisions of the Act 1960 and the
Rules 1964, after the land value has been paid and the patta has been
issued, the patta itself should be treated as the title of the property, and
thereafter, the assignee should be treated as the owner in possession of
the said land. A perusal of Exts.P10 and P11 would reveal that in a similar
case involving patta land, an award has been passed granting
compensation in respect of the land also.
8. As per the statement of the 3rd respondent the compensation for
the land has been declined mainly for the reason that the patta has been
issued with certain conditions and therefore the petitioner has no absolute
right over the land and that the land value cannot be granted in respect of
patta land as per the guidelines of MoRTH.
9. To examine the rival contentions, it is profitable to scan through
the provisions of the Act 1960 and the Rules 1964 and the guidelines
issued by MoRTH. The Act has been promulgated to regulate the
2025:KER:46588
assignment of Government lands and as per Section 2(2)(a) "assignment"
includes a transfer of land by way of lease and a grant of licence for the
use of land and as per Section 2(2)(b) "assignee" includes his heirs.
Section 3 deals with the assignment of Government land, and as per
Section 3(1), the Government land may be assigned by the Government or
by any prescribed authority either absolutely or subject to such restrictions,
limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. Rules 1964 has been
framed exercising the power conferred by Section 7 of the Act 1960 and as
per Rule 2(b) "assignee" means a person to whom land is assigned under
these Rules and includes his heirs or successors in interest and as per
Rule 2(c) "assignment" means transfer of land by way of registry and
includes a lease and a grant of licence for the use of the land. Rule 9 deals
with the payment of land value and the issuance of patta. Rule 9 provides
that the order granting registry shall be issued in the form in APPENDIX 1
of the Rules for assignment of occupied lands and in the form in
APPENDIX 1A to these rules for assignment of unoccupied lands. A
perusal of Ext.P1 patta would reveal that it has been issued as per the
provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Rules 1964. Rule 9(6A) mandates that
notwithstanding the order of registry of any land and the communication of
that order to the assignee, the title to that land shall not pass to the
assignee until he remits that land value and tree value payable in respect
of that land, the arrears of tax, if any due in respect of the land and other
2025:KER:46588
charges due from him. Rule 24 mandates that, notwithstanding anything
contained in Rules 1964, the Government, if they consider it necessary so
to do in public interest, assign land dispensing with any of the provisions
contained in these Rules and subject to such conditions, if any, as they
may impose. A combined reading of the above-quoted provisions makes it
explicitly clear that assignment includes a transfer of land by way of
registry and that the assignee means a person to whom land is assigned
and includes his heir or successor in interest. It is further to be noted that
Rules 1964, especially Rule 9(6A) provides that the title to the land will be
passed to the assignee on his remittance of the land value. Admittedly, the
land was assigned as per Ext.P1 on registry after payment of the full land
value as revealed from Ext.P2 order that the land value of Rs.1,000/- per
cent, besides other land acquisition charges, is remitted. It is a settled
position of law that title indicates legal recognition of ownership of a
property, and title with possession manifests unequivocal ownership. In
view of the fact that Ext.P1 patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner
on remitting the full land value, the stipulation in Rule 9(6A) of the Rules
1964 that the title to the land will be passed to the assignee on his
remittance of the land value and that the petitioner has possession over the
property as evident from Ext.P3 possession certificate, there can be no
doubt that the petitioner has valid title over the said land and should be
treated as the owner of the land whereby entitling the petitioner for
2025:KER:46588
compensation towards the land value also. The stand in the statement filed
by the 3rd respondent that since the property is covered only by a patta
which has been issued with conditions and the petitioner has no saleable
right over the subject land, also cannot be accepted. The respondents
have no case that any of the conditions in Ext.P1 patta have been violated,
and any steps have been taken to resume the land for any alleged
violation. The only effect of the conditions attached to the patta is that the
Government is free to resume the land in case of violation of any of the
conditions of assignment, which is admittedly not available in the present
case. Yet another aspect to be noted is that Rules 1964 deals with the
assignment of land by way of registry and includes a lease and grant of a
licence for the use of the land. Rule 13 of the Rules 1964 deals with the
lease or licensing of Government land, which is granted on conditions. If
the Government intended to limit the right of the petitioner over the subject
land, Government would have only granted a licence in favour of the
petitioner. Even though Rules 1964 provides for the grant of lease or
licence in respect of properties, what has been done as per Exts.P1 and
P2 is the assignment of land on the registry and patta has been issued.
Only for the reason that the patta has been issued with conditions, it
cannot be held that the petitioner has no title over the subject land.
10. The further contention raised based on the guidelines of MoRTH
that in the case of patta land, compensation will be granted only for the
2025:KER:46588
structures also cannot be accepted in the light of specific provisions in the
Act 1960 and Rules 1964 especially the condition in Rule 9(6A) that title to
the land will be passed to the assignee on his remittance of the land value.
The relevant provision of the Guidelines relied on by respondents 1 and 3
to decline compensation towards land is Clause 3-5-5(v)(a) of the
Guidelines, which reads as follows:
"(a) There are instances where people are granted
patta/ownership rights on the land under any law of the State including
abadi/assigned land. In such cases compensation would be paid for the
structures only on the recommendation of the CALA/State Government.
The procedure for valuation of such structures will be followed as
mentioned in the above paragraphs."
A perusal of the manual of guidelines issued by MoRTH in respect of Land
Acquisition for the National Highways reveals that it is only a guideline
prepared by the then Secretary to the Department of Road, Transport and
Highways, holistically addressing various issues, relating to legal issues or
the processes involved at all stages of acquisition and has no statutory
backing. No contention has been raised by the respondents to substantiate
that the guidelines have been issued on the strength of any statute. It is a
settled position of law that a guideline/circular cannot run contrary to the
statutory provisions. The Apex Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v.
Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 205 has held that a mere circular letter that has
no force of law will not prevail over the statutory rules. In State of M.P. v.
2025:KER:46588
G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150, the Apex Court has
observed that executive instructions cannot run contrary to statutory
provisions or whittle down their effect. Further, it is pertinent to note that
the 3rd respondent herein, in the case of a patta land, has awarded
compensation in respect of the land also as per Ext P11 award. The Apex
Court in Syndicate Bank v. Ramachandran Pillai and others, (2011)15
SCC 398 has considered the value and effect of a guideline and held that
guidelines/executive instructions are not statutory in character and are not
law, and they do not confer any legal right. Going by Clause 3-5-5(v)(a) of
the guidelines, when land is covered by a patta/ownership rights under any
law of the State, compensation will be paid only for the structures. The
Madras High Court in Vijayakumar B.M. v. District Collector cum
Arbitrator, Chengalpet, 2024 KHC OnLine 5126 has considered an
almost identical situation and on finding that the land is a patta land,
directed to disburse the compensation to the petitioner for the acquired
land. The Apex Court in Yerikala Sunkalamma v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Revenue, 2025 KHC OnLine 6261 was
considering a case where a property is covered by a pattadar passbook
and the parties were paying tax to the Government and held that what was
vested in the appellants with the issuance of a pattadar passbook was a
"property" within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Specifically referring to Article 300A, the Court held that dispossessing the
2025:KER:46588
appellants therein from the suit land without prior notice or compensation is
illegal and violative of their property rights guaranteed under Article 300A,
as the property cannot be taken without the sanction of law. While
examining the meaning of patta, the Apex Court held that pattadar is
essentially a land owner who holds a land deed (patta) directly from the
Government and is registered in the land revenue accounts as the holder
or occupant of the land, liable to pay land revenue and patta is a type of
land deed issued by the Government, indicating ownership or the right to
hold land and therefore a person who holds a patta is also responsible for
paying land revenue to the Government and their names are registered in
the land revenue accounts of the Government as pattadar. It is further held
that the land patta holder is a person who has been granted a patta (a legal
document) that confers rights over a specific piece of land, typically
indicating ownership or entitlement to use the land. Going by the decision
in Yerikala Sunkalamma's case cited supra, Ext.P1 patta should be
treated as a valid document indicating ownership of the petitioner, though it
is issued with some conditions. In the light of the above, the contention
raised by respondents 1 and 3 based on the guidelines which disentitle the
grant of compensation for the land which is covered by a patta issued by
the State Government is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
Given the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the petitioner is also entitled to compensation for the land acquired.
2025:KER:46588
As per the instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the
compensation amount towards structural value has already been disbursed
to the petitioner. Therefore, the above writ petition is allowed directing the
3rd respondent to pass an award in respect of the land in survey No.1/5 of
Thaneermukkom North Village acquired from the petitioner pursuant to
Ext.P5 notification and to pay the compensation amount due, without any
delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2025:KER:46588
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12196/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 2.8.1983 OF
THANEERMUKKOM N VILLAGE, ISSUED BY THE
GOVT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.
685/83/RD DATED 17.6.1983 FROM THE
REVENUE DEPT. TRIVANDRUM (ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY).
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 30.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, THANEERMUKKOM N VILLAGE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
DATED 21.05.2019 ISUSED BY THE CHERTHALA
MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
15.02.2018 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY DATED 10.03.2018.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.12.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION MAHZAR DATED
10.11.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANEERMUKKOM N
VILLAGE.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO. LAC
992/2019/THANNEERMUKKOM
NORTH/S.O.796(E)/1990/2023/A3 DATED
16.2.2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
16.6.2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO.6/22 DATED
NIL ISSUED IN RESPECT TO BE SNDP SHAKA
YOGAM BR. 2189
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID AWARD LAC NO
508/2020/PURAKKAD/SO.4348(E)/A4-
3255/2024 DATED 25-3-2024
