Kerala High Court
Pratheesh vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
1
2025:KER:25708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED IN LAR NO.129 OF 2021
OF LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS 2 & 3 IN LAR 129/2021:
1 PRATHEESH
S/O RAJAGOPAL, PAVOOR VEETTIL, PADIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PIN - 682024
2 RENUKA
W/O RAJAGOPAL , PAVOOR VEETTIL, PADIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
ROSE MICHAEL
C.P.WILSON
MICHAEL PAUL CHITTINAPPILLY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1,2&3 AND CLAIMANT NO.1 IN LAR 129/2021:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-,
PIN - 682030
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD
REVENUE TOWER, ERNAKULAM, 4TH FLOOR,
JLN STADIUM METRO STATION, KALOOR,
KOCHI-, PIN - 682017
2
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708
3 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
(SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LA NO.1,
KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682030
4 RESIDENTS OF PENTA QUEEN APARTMENTS
PENTA QUEEN APARTMENTS, CIVIL LANE ROAD
PADIVATTOM, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
MANU VYASAN PETER - R2
P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994) - R2
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009) - R2
SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998)- R2
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R3
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.
---------------------------------
LA. App. No.99 of 2023
---------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the award dated 07.07.2023
in LAR No.129 of 2021 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority, Ernakulam. Appellants were claimants 2
and 3 in the LAR. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were respondents 1
to 3 in the LAR. The 4th respondent herein was the 1st claimant in
the LAR. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in
the LAR.
2. Claimants 2 and 3 are aggrieved by the rejection of
their claim to release the award amounts lying in deposit before
the Authority. They had claimed that they are the legal heirs of
the deceased Rajagopal, on whom the acquired property had
vested by virtue of Ext.A1 partition deed. The said property,
having an extent of 0.09 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No. 120/2-
B19 of Edappally South Village, had been acquired for the
purpose of widening Palarivattom-Kakkanad PWD Road in
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708
connection with Kochi Metro Rail Project. Award No. 53/2021
dated 05.07.2021 in LAC No. 45/2020 was rendered for an
amount of Rs.8,88,870/- fixing land value at the rate of
Rs.38,08,273/- per Are. The said amount was deposited before
the Authority as per Section 77 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 since the claimants
failed to produce original title deeds. On the strength of Ext. P1
partition deed as well as tax receipt produced as Ext. A2,
claimants 2 and 3 claimed possession over the said property and
professed entitlement to the amounts lying in deposit before the
Authority. The Authority raised two points for consideration and
permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Exts.A1 and A2 were
produced by the claimants and respondents produced Exts. R1,
R2 and R3. AW1 was examined as a witness on the part of the
claimants. After appreciating the evidence, the Authority came to
the conclusion that claimants 2 and 3 failed to establish their
right to receive the compensation deposited as there was nothing
to prove that they were in possession of the property or that they
had title over the same. It was held that Exts.A1 and A2 do not
have prima facie evidence of their continuing possession. It was
also pointed out that there appeared to be differences in the
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708
survey numbers as shown in Ext.A1 and the survey number of the
property as covered in Exts. R1 and R2. Holding thus, the claim
put forth by claimants 2 and 3 was rejected vide the order
impugned in this appeal.
3. Heard Smt.Rose Michael, Advocate for the
appellants/claimants 2 & 3, Smt.Rekha C. Nair, Sr. Government
Pleader for R1 and R3 and Sri.P.B.Krishnan instructed by Sri.Manu
Vyasan Peter, Advocate for R2.
4. Admittedly, no evidence, other than Exts.A1 and A2,
had been produced to substantiate the claims put forth by
claimants 2 and 3. The relevant survey number noted in Ext.A1 is
Survey No.120/19A of Edappaly South Village. The acquired
property, however, is stated to be comprised in a different survey
number viz. Survey No. 120/2-B19 of the same village. The
Authority has stated that when the 3 rd claimant was examined as
AW1, she was questioned regarding this variance in number, but
no plausible explanation was provided by her. The learned
counsel appearing for claimants 2 and 3 submitted that variation
is due to a subsequent resurvey that had been conducted during
which further divisions were made. It is further submitted that
though documents to explain out the difference in survey number
were available with claimants 2 and 3, they were not able to
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708
produce the same before the Authority as enough time had not
been afforded. It is submitted that if an opportunity to produce
the said documents is provided, they would be able to
substantiate their contentions.
5. The Authority, has concluded that the respondents had
not provided any explanation as to how the names of the 2nd and
3rd claimants happened to be mentioned in the award. It is the
specific contention of claimants 2 and 3 before me that they have
sufficient material to discharge the burden of proving their
possessory title over the property and to explain the variance
noted in the survey number. Except for Exts.A1 and A2, no other
documents could be produced before the Authority by the
claimants 2 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
substantial justice demands that claimants 2 and 3 be afforded
an opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate their
contentions.
6. Accordingly, the award dated 07.07.2023 in LAR No. 129
of 2021 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Ernakulam is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Authority for fresh consideration and disposal after
affording all parties an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence.
LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708
L.A.A is disposed of directing the claimants 2 and 3 to appear
before the Authority on 10.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. The Authority
shall consider the LAR afresh after affording both sides
opportunity to tender additional evidence, if any.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.
JUDGE
NJ
