Kerala High Court
Salim J vs The State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
1
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. 391 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.8.2016 IN LAR
NO.21 OF 2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/4TH ADDITIONAL CLAIMANT:
SALIM J.
S/O. JAFERKUTTY, SAMSAM HOUSE, CHATHINAMKULAM
CHERRY, MANGADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SRI.S.ABHILASH
KUM.KAVYA SOMAN
SMT.RENY ANTO
SMT.S.SEETHA
RESPONDENTS/STATE & CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM - 691 013.
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
2
2 MOHANAN
S/O. DAMODHARAN, 'SOORYA',KOONAYIL, NEDUNGOLAM
P.O,PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 334.
3 SUBHADRA LILLY
W/O. MOHANAN,SOORYA',KOONAYIL, NEDUNGOLAM
P.O,PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 334.
4 STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RETAIL
ASSETS & SMALL ENTERPRISES CITY CREDIT
CENTER,(RASSMECCC), 2ND FLOOR, RAVI'S ARCADE,
NEAR IRON BRIDGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.
BY ADVS.
SC FOR SBI ADV R S KALKURA FOR R4
Sr GP T K SHAJAHAN FOR R1
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..436/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
3
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. 436 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.05.2010 IN
LAR NO.22 OF 2008 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
1 MOHANLAL (DIED)
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O GANGAN VAIDYAN, SREESANKARA MANDIRAM,
KURUMANDAL CHERRY, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
*ADDL.A2 ANITHA MOHANLAL,
W/O.LATE MOHANLAL, AGED 62 YEARS,
ANITHA BHAVANAM, KURUMANDAL B., PARAVOOR,
KOLLAM - 691 031.
*ADDL.A3 GIRISH LAL, S/O.LATE MOHANLAL, AGED 35 YEARS,
ANITHA BHAVANAM, KURUMANDAL B, PARAVOOR,
KOLLAM - 691 031.
*ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL
HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED
13.3.2025 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN L.A.APP.NO.436/2016.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
4
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI SR.
SMT.RENY ANTO
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-
691013.
BY ADV SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..391/2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
5
JUDGMENT
[LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016]
Easwaran S., J.
These appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees dated
5.8.2016 and 27.5.2010 in L.A.R Nos.21/2010 and 22/2008 of the
Principal Sub Court, Kollam, and Additional Sub Court, Kollam
respectively.
2. An extent of 37.42 Ares of land in re-survey No.251/14 of
Paravoor Village in Kollam Taluk was acquired for rehabilitation of
Tsunami victims. Notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.10.2007. The land acquisition
officer fixed the land value at Rs.25,204/- per Are. Dissatisfied with
the land value fixed by the land acquisition officer, the claimants
sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, before the Principal Sub Court, Kollam in LAR No.21/2010.
3. In the present case, an extent of 46 Ares of land comprised
in re-survey No.183/18 in Paravoor Village of Kollam Taluk was
acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of Tsunami victims. Section
4(1) notification was published on 3.12.2007 and 5.12.2007. The land
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs.29,652/- per Are.
Dissatisfied with the award of the land acquisition officer, the claimant
sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 before the Additional Sub Court, Kollam by filing LAR
No.22/2008.
Evidence adduced by the appellants/claimants
4. The claimants in L.A.App.No.391/2017 adduced evidence
in the form of Exts.A1 to A6. The land in respect of the
appellant/claimant in L.A.App.No.391/2017 was mortgaged with State
Bank of India, Kollam and the mortgagee was impleaded as a third
party (additional 3rd claimant) in the reference and on behalf of the
Bank, Exts.B1 to B11 documents were produced. The claimant(s) also
applied for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner for local
inspection, whose report was marked as Ext.X1(a). The respondent-
State, on the other hand, produced Exts.R1, R1(a) and R1(b). AW1 to
AW3 were examined on behalf of the claimants.
5. The appellants/claimants in L.A.App.No.436/2016, on the
other hand, produced Exts.A1 to A3 documents. Exts.C1 and C2 were
marked as the report of the Advocate Commissioner and mahazar.
Exts.R1 to R3 documents were marked on behalf of the State.
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
Findings of the reference court
6. The reference court in LAR No.21/2010 relied on Ext.B11
valuation certificate produced by State Bank of India and fixed the
land value at Rs.1,54,437.50 per Are. The reference court in LAR
No.22/2008 granted an enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.19,274/-
per Are over and above the land value awarded by the land acquisition
officer at the rate of Rs.29,652/- per Are. Since both these appeals
relate to enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired
for the purpose of rehabilitation of Tsunami victims in the same block
number of the same village, we deem it appropriate to consider these
appeals together.
7. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in L.A.App.No.391/2017; Sri.Pratheesh P.,
the learned counsel for the appellant in L.A.App.No.436/2016;
Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the State; and Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India in
L.A.App.No.391/2017.
Appreciation of evidence and Evaluation of submissions
8. Firstly, we shall discuss the evidence in L.A.R No.21/2010.
This, in our view, will suffice the cause in L.A.App.No.436/2016. On
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
appreciation of evidence, if we are to find that the appellant/claimant
in L.A.App.No.391/2017 is entitled for enhancement, the same amount
has to be fixed for the appellant/claimant in L.A.App.No. 436/2016.
9. The exemplars produced by the claimants in L.A.R
No.21/2010 consist of certified copy of sale deed No.3831/2001 dated
18.10.2001, Ext.A1. The said exemplar was the subject matter of
adjudication by the reference court in LAR Nos.7/2006 and 8/2006
dated 28.11.2014, wherein the reference court fixed the land value at
Rs.2,22,128/- per Are (Ext.A4). The acquisition in LAR Nos.7/2006 and
8/2006 pertained to the establishment of municipal bus stand. The
evidence in the case consists of the report of the Advocate
Commissioner, Ext.X1(a), which may be considered by us in detail.
The claimants attempted to substantiate their claim in order to sustain
their claim for enhancement based on Exts.A1 and A4. The report of
the Advocate Commissioner, Ext.X1(a), forms the crux of the claim for
enhancement. On scrutiny of Ext.X1(a), we find that the commissioner
had specifically reported that the land acquired is situated 150 metres
away from Chathannur-Varkkala State Highway and 100 metres from
the Paravoor Railway Station. Still further, the land acquired is
situated 200 metres away from the Fire Station and the Paravoor
Munsiff's Court is situated 500 metres away from the land acquired.
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
Most importantly, the Advocate Commissioner also reported the
existence of Police Station, Post Office, State Bank of Travancore,
Paravoor Higher Secondary School, Regional Co-operative Bank,
KSEB office, Nehru Park, Office of the Municipality and the SNVRC
Bank within one kilometre from the property sought to be acquired.
It is further noted by the Advocate Commissioner that within a
distance of 500 metres to 1.00 k.m. of the land acquired, Kollam-
Thiruvananthapuram National Highway, Chathannur-Paravoor road,
Paravoor-Varkkala road, Paravoor-Parippally road, Paravoor-Kappil
road, which are all State Highways, are situated. The municipal bus
stand, for which the land was acquired for which Ext.A4 judgment was
passed by the reference court, is within one kilometre from the land
acquired. The commercial importance of the land acquired having
thus been established by the claimants, we will now proceed to
consider the findings rendered by the reference court.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgment in
L.A.App.No.391/2017 reveals that the reference court relied upon the
oral testimony of AW2, the Advocate Commissioner, and found that the
land acquired is situated 7 k.m away from the National Highway. This
was the primary reason that weighed in the mind of the reference
court while rejecting the evidentiary value of Exts.A1 and A4.
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
Pertinently, the reference court specifically noticed from Ext.X1(a)
that the acquired property is within one kilometre of SNVRC Bank.
The same was the land covered by Ext.A1 and also the property sought
to be acquired for the construction of the municipal bus stand.
11. Even if we are to assume that the findings of the reference
court, as regards the rejection of Exts.A2 and A3, are correct, we find
ourselves at variance with the findings of the reference court insofar
as the rejection of Ext.A4 document is concerned. It is true that Ext.A1
document is of the year 2001, but the fact remains that Ext.A1 was
properly tested in proceedings under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, which resulted in Ext.A4 judgment of the
reference court fixing the land value at Rs.2,22,128/- per Are.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the light of the
uncontroverted evidence on record in the form of the report of the
Advocate Commissioner, Ext.X1(a), establishing the proximity of the
land acquired with that of the land involved in Ext.A4 judgment of
reference court, we are of the view that the reference court was not
justified in rejecting Ext.A4 and the said finding is thus liable to be
interfered with.
12. The next question before us would be in what manner we
should fix the market value. In the present case, we find that the
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
claimant/appellant has discharged the initial burden by producing the
exemplars. The reference court after rejecting Ext.A1 proceeded to
fix the land value going by Ext.B11, which is the valuation certificate
produced by the State Bank of India. As stated above, since the land
in question was mortgaged by the appellant/4th claimant to the State
Bank of India and Bank had priority over the compensation awarded
for the land acquired, we are told that the Bank has received the
amount under the award. The reference court accepted Ext.B11,
discarding the objections of the State, and proceeded to fix the
compensation on the ground that the valuation statement taken by the
Bank has to be given credence. We note that vide separate judgment
today in L.A.App.No.267/2017, we have dismissed the appeal
preferred by the State as regards the challenge raised to the findings
of the reference court accepting Ext.B11.
13. But the question before us is how to determine the market
value in the present case. In General Manager, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel and Another [2008 (14) SCC 745], the Supreme Court, while
considering the application of escalation of the land value, held that
in the case where the land is situated in an urban area, 10-15%
escalation can be granted. We note from the evidence on record that
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
the land in question for which Ext.A4 judgment of the reference court
was rendered pertains to an acquisition of the year 2003. Therefore,
we are of the view that the appellant/claimant is entitled to apply
escalation at 10% for a period of four years on an amount of
Rs.2,22,128/-.
14. In New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs.
Harnand Singh (Deceased) through Lrs. and Others [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1691], the Supreme Court applied the principles of
guesstimation for the purpose of arriving at the market value. We find
that applying the principles of guesstimation alongside the principles
enunciated by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation (ONGC) Limited (supra), we are certainly justified in
fixing the land value by applying 10% escalation on Rs.2,22,128/-
which comes to Rs.3,30,827/-. Therefore, we fix the market value of
the land acquired in the present case at Rs.3,30,827/- per Are.
15. Insofar as L.A.App.No.436/2016 is concerned, the learned
Senior Government Pleader vehemently pointed out that no evidence
was produced before the reference court by the claimant to
substantiate his claim. It is true that the claimant did not adduce any
substantial piece of evidence for the purpose of sustaining his claim.
However, we notice from Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
that the claimant was successful in establishing the proximity of the
land with several commercial institutions in the vicinity. Still further,
the land in question in L.A.App.No.436/2016 is situated in the same
block number of the Paravoor village. It is pertinent to note that the
purpose of the acquisition is the rehabilitation of Tsunami victims.
16. The question thus would be whether we can fix an amount
of Rs.3,30,827.50, which we have fixed as the market value for the
land in Paravoor Village covered in LAR No.21/2010, which is the
subject matter of acquisition for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims? We
note that the land which is the subject matter of LAR No.22/2008 is
also in the same village. In this context, we find that we are guided by
the decision of the Supreme Court in Pal Singh and Others vs. Union
Territory of Chandigargh [1992 (4) SCC 400]. Therefore, we are of
the view that once a market value in respect of the land for the purpose
of the same acquisition, though covered by different notifications, is
fixed by us, the appellant in L.A.App.No.436/2016 is also entitled for
the same benefits.
As an upshot of these discussions, we are of the considered view
that both the appellants are entitled to succeed. Hence,
L.A.App.Nos.391/2017 and 436/2016 are allowed. The land value is
refixed at Rs.3,30,827/- per Are. The appellants/claimants will be
2025:KER:21702
LA.App. Nos.391/2017 & 436/2016
entitled to all statutory benefits, including proportionate costs in the
appeals.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.,
JUDGE
jg
