Kerala High Court
The Secretary vs Neelakandan Pillai Raveendran Pillai on 26 May, 2025
2025:KER:36119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2009 IN LAR NO.22 OF
2003 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
APPELLANT/REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY - NOT A PARTY IN L.A.R.:
THE SECRETARY
CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHADAYAMANGALAM.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.R
1 NEELAKANDAN PILLAI RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
KOLLANTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, CHADAYAMANGALAM,
PIN-691 534, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN, S/O.KANNAN UNNITHAN, MANGALATHU
PUTHEN VEEDU, CHADAYAMANGALAM.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN-691 534.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) - FOR R1.
SMT.REKHA C. NAIR - SR. GP.
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 26.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
3
JUDGMENT
1. This Land Acquisition Appeal is filed by the Requisitioning
Authority after obtaining leave of this Court, since the
Requisitioning Authority was not a party in LAR No.
22/2003, in which the impugned judgment was passed.
2. An extent of 17.30 Ares of land in Survey No. 172/4 and
172/4-1 of Chadayamangalam Village was acquired by
the 2nd respondent State, on the requisition of the
appellant from the 1st respondent for constructing a
KSRTC Bus Station at Chadayamangalam as per Section
4(1) Notification dated 20.09.2000 under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The land was taken into possession
on 03-11-2001. The Land Acquisition Officer passed
Award granting compensation fixing land value at the rate
Rs.1,304/- per Are. The Reference Court awarded
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
compensation fixing land value Rs. 8,000/- per cent. The
appeal is filed challenging the enhancement granted by
the Reference Court.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Anchal C.
Vijayan, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent,
Sri.A.R.Dileep, and the learned Senior Government
Pleader for the 2nd respondent, Smt.Rekha C.Nair.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that,
except for this case, in all of the other cases, the awards
were challenged before this Court on the ground that the
Requisitioning Authority was not made a party and the
awards were set aside and the matter was remanded back
to the Reference Court. In the judgment of the Reference
Court in L.A.R No. 1/2003 and connected cases, the
Reference Court fixed land value for category I at
Rs.33,870/- per Are, and category II, at Rs. 6,520/- per
Are. The category No. I is the paddy land having M.C.
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
road frontage. Category No. II is the paddy land line
behind category No. 1 without road frontage. The awards
of the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 1/2003 and
connected cases were challenged before this Court in
L.A.A No. 387/2014 and connected cases. This Court
considered the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.
No.703/2010 in another acquisition in the same area, in
which the land value for category No. I therein was fixed at
Rs. 10,000/- per cent and the land value for category No.
II therein was fixed at Rs. 6,750 per cent. The Section
4(1) Notification with respect to L.A.A.703/2010 is dated
25.05.1999. This Court found that there is a time
difference of 1 ½ years between the 4(1) Notification in
L.A.A. No. 387/2014 and the Section 4(1) Notification in
L.A.A. No. 703/2012 and that the lands involved in L.A.A.
No. 387/2014 and connected cases are superior than the
lands involved in L.A.A. No. 703/2010 and connected
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
cases. Considering these facts, this Court found that the
land value in L.A.R. No. 1/2003 for category No.I could be
fixed at Rs. 34,000/- per Are. Since the Reference Court
fixed the land value for Category No.1 at Rs.33,870/- per
Are and there was no appeal from the side of the
claimants, this Court dismissed L.A.A. No.387/2014 and
connected cases confirming the land value awarded by
the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 1/2003. With respect to
the land value awarded for Category No.II, the Reference
Court had awarded is Rs.6,520/- and there was no appeal
from the side of the claimants and hence the land value
awarded by the Reference Court with category No. II was
also confirmed in L.A.A. No.387/2014 and connected
case. The contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellant is that, since this Court has fixed land value for
category No.II at Rs. 6,520/- per Are, the land value fixed
by Reference Court at Rs. 8,000/- per cent is highly
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
excessive and is liable to reduced to Rs.6,520/- per are.
The learned counsel also pointed out that there is no
independent material before the Reference Court to hold
that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.8,000 per cent.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent claimant contended that in L.A.A. No.387/2014
and connected appeals filed by the Requisitioning
Authority the question before this Court is whether the
land value fixed by the Reference Court is excessive or
not. There was no appeal from the side of the claimants in
those L.A.Rs. Hence the question whether the claimants
are entitled to get enhancement of land value than the
land value fixed by the Reference Court was not there.
Hence the judgments in L.A.A. No.387/2014 and
connected appeals are to be ignored in this appeal and it
is to be independently examined whether the award
passed by the Reference Court fixing land value at the
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
rate of Rs. 8,000/- is liable to be interfered or not.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. Before the Reference Court, the first respondent claimant
claimed Rs. 75,000/- per cent. The claimant produced
Exts. A1 to A3 documents to prove the land value. The
Reference Court found that the land value claimed by the
claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.
10,000/- per cent, hence the claim is to be considered as
only Rs. 10,000 per cent and could not be considered at
Rs.75,000/- per cent. The Reference Court discarded
Exts. A1 and A2 sale deeds finding that those documents
are not comparable documents for fixing the land value.
Thereafter, without relying on any material and without any
further discussion, the Reference Court fixed the land
value at Rs. 8,000/- per cent. There is no reason in the
impugned judgment to support the fixation of land value at
Rs.8,000/- per cent. The learned counsel for the 1 st
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
respondent also could not substantiate any evidence in
support of the said finding fixing land value at Rs. 8,000/-
per cent. True, in L.A.A. No. 387/2014, the question
before this Court was only whether the land value
awarded by the Reference Court is excessive or not.
Whether the claimants are entitled to get higher land value
than the amount awarded by the Reference Court was not
before this Court. But if the fixation of land value with
respect to category No. II in L.A.A. No. 387/2014 and
connected cases are ignored, the 1st respondent/claimant
should convince this Court for the fixation of the land value
at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per cent. There was no material
before the Reference Court for enhancing any amount
from the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Since the claimant could not independently sustain the
fixation of land value at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per cent, I
am of the view that the impugned award is liable to be
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
interfered with.
8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent prayed for a
remand, since the present situation occasioned by the
judgments in L.A.A. No. 387/2014 and connected cases
was not there when the impugned judgment was passed.
The 1st respondent may be permitted to adduce
independent evidence to sustain the claim made by him
before the Reference Court. I am of the view that the 1st
respondent claimant had enough opportunity before the
Trial Court and he had adduced evidence before the Trial
Court. There is no reason to allow the remand as prayed
for by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
9. Considering the fact that in L.A.A. No.387/2014 and
connected cases, this Court has fixed land value at the
rate of Rs.6,520/- per Are, it would be an injustice if the
first respondent claimant is denied the said land value.
Hence, I hold that the 1 st respondent claimant is entitled to
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
get fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.6,520/- per Are
for the land acquired in L.A.R. No.22/2003. Accordingly,
this L.A.Appeal is allowed without costs modifying the
fixation of land value for the acquired land in L.A.R. No.
22/2003 from Rs. 8,000/- per cent to Rs. 6,520/- per Are
which includes the land value awarded by the Land
acquisition Officer. The claimant is entitled get all statutory
benefits.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
1st respondent claimant withdrew the 50% of the amount
awarded as per the impugned judgment from the
Execution Court by filing an Affidavit that in case the
amount is reduced in appeal, he will deposit back the said
amount with interest. He prayed for a direction to the
Execution Court to recover the excess amount paid to the
claimant with interest and pay the same back to the
appellant. The said recovery and payment is a matter to
2025:KER:36119
LA.APP. NO. 261 OF 2019
be considered by the Execution Court and it is not a
matter to be considered in this Land Acquisition Appeal.
Hence, the Appellant is at liberty to recover any excess
amount paid, if any, from the claimant though the
Execution Court.
11. Accordingly this appeal is allowed as stated above.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
mus
