Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017 & 1 2025:KER:21365
CO No.54 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
CO NO. 54 OF 2022
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2017 IN LAR NO.53
OF 2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM
CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
MOHANAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KOTTAYIL, VADAKKUMBHAGAM CHERRY,
ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 011.
BY ADV C.A.RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM - 691 013.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 13.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..375/2017, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017 & 2 2025:KER:21365
CO No.54 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2017 IN LAR NO.53
OF 2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN LAR:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:
MOHANAN
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KOTTAYIL VADAKKUMBHAGAM CHERRY,
ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
NADESAN, EDAPOIKAYIL PADINJATTINKARA MURI, VELIYAM
VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK- 691540.
BY ADV SRI.C.A.RAJEEV
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 13.03.2025, ALONG WITH CO.54/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017 & 3 2025:KER:21365
CO No.54 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S., J.
The appeal in Cross Objection arises out of the judgment and decree
in L.A.R.No.53/2009 on the files of Principal Sub Court, Kollam.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as
follows:
An extent of 34.88 Ares of land in Re.Sy No.677/11 of Iravipuram
Village was acquired for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims. Notification under
Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10.10.2007.
The land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value @ Rs.7,981 per Are.
Dissatisfied with the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant
sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act. The
Reference Court refixed the land value @ Rs.28,835/-. Dissatisfied with the
fixation of the land value, the claimant preferred an appeal before this Court
as LA.App.No.526 of 2011 and by judgment dated 22.12.2010 of this Court set
aside the judgment of the Reference Court and remanded the matter back to
the Reference Court in order to enable the appellant/claimant to prove the
proximity of the land involved in the appeal with the lands covered by
judgment in L.A.R No.52 of 2009, L.A.R No.58 of 2009 and L.A.R No.59 of
2009. After remand, the claimant sought for the appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner for local inspection, who inspected the property and submitted
Ext.X2 report on 03.01.2017. The Reference Court after considering the
evidence on record, did not deem it fit to enhance the land value and fixed the
same value @ Rs.28,835/- per Are. Aggrieved by the fixation of the aforesaid
amount as the land value, the State has preferred the appeal, whereas the
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017 & 4 2025:KER:21365
claimant has preferred the Cross Objection seeking enhancement.
3. Heard Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the State and C.A.Rajeev, the learned counsel
appearing for the claimant-cross objector.
4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar,
we find that the appeal preferred by the State has to fail, and the Cross
Objection has to be allowed. By common judgment dated 27.08.2011 in L.A.R
No.58 of 2009 and L.A.R No.59 of 2009, the Reference Court enhanced the
value of the land from Rs.29,434/- to Rs.99,434/-, whereas the land value in
L.A.R No.59 of 2009 was enhanced from Rs.34,952/- to Rs.1,04,952/-. From
the general note to award (Ext.R1(a), we find that the land included in L.A.R.
No.59 of 2009 was categorised under Category No.1(a) -dry land with
Corporation access road, whereas in the case of land in question, the Land
Acquisition Officer had categorised it as Category II(a). The evidence on
record further shows that the land in question is a reclaimed dry land with
access to the road. The Reference Court refused to follow the land value
fixed in L.A.R No.59 of 2009 on the ground that the category of land involved
in the present case is different from that of the land in L.A.R No.59 of 2009.
We fail to appreciate the rationale behind the said finding. Reclaimed dry
land with access to the road could not be classified as Category II(a), and we
find that the claimant is entitled to have his land classified as Category 1(a).
It is also brought to our notice that as against the fixation of the land value in
L.A.R Nos.52 and 58 of 2009, the State has not preferred any appeal.
Though an appeal was preferred against L.A.R No.59 of 2009, the same was
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017 & 5 2025:KER:21365
dismissed by this Court. Therefore, considering the entire facts and evidence
on record, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court was not
justified in rejecting the claim of the claimant to have the land value as
Rs.1,04,952/- as done in L.A.R No.59 of 2009.
As an upshot of this discussion, we are of the considered view that
LA.Appeal No.375 of 2017 is preferred by the State has to fail and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. Cross Objection No.54 of 2022, preferred
by the claimant, is allowed. The land value is refixed at Rs.1,04,952/-. The
claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits including proportionate costs in
the Cross Objection. We find from the valuation of the Cross Objection, the
claimant has limited his claim for the purpose of payment of court fee to
Rs.50,000/- per Are. Since we have found that the claimant is entitled to
have the land value fixed at Rs.1,04,952/- per Are. The claimant is granted an
opportunity to pay the deficit court fee. Thus, while allowing the Cross
Objection, we direct that the cross objector shall pay the deficit court fee
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment. The Registry shall draw the decree only after the cross objector/
claimant pays the deficit court fee.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
mns
LA.APP. NO. 375 OF 2017 & 6 2025:KER:21365
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT.
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF COUNTERFOIL SHOWING THE
DEPOSIT OF RS,15,01,318/- DATED 4.10.2013
