[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Geo George V vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2026
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 33 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR NO.99
OF 2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/ 2nd CLAIMANT:
SUMA JACOB
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.JACOB MARTIN,
PAINUMOOTTIL, KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD - 682 030.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP FOR R1,
ADV CHETHAN KRISHNA FOR R2
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2026, ALONG WITH LA.Appeal Nos.42/2025, 43/2025 & 48/2025,
THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 42 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR NO.99
OF 2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/5th CLAIMANT:
GEO GEORGE V.,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE KASEESA,
VADAKKAN HOUSE,THOZHIYUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 520.
BY ADV SHRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:ADV REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP FOR R1,
ADV CHETHAN KRISHNA FOR R2
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2026, ALONG WITH LA.Appeal Nos.33/2025, 43/2025 & 48/2025,
THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 43 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR NO.99
OF 2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/4th CLAIMANT:
A.C.NARAYANAN
S/O. LATE CHATHUKUTTY, ARACKALPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MANAKULANGARA P.O., KOPRAKULAM (VIA), KODAKARA,
THRISSUR - 680 684.
BY ADV SHRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:ADV REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP FOR R1,
ADV CHETHAN KRISHNA FOR R2
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2026, ALONG WITH LA.Appeal Nos.33/2025, 42/2025 AND
48/2025, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 48 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2019 IN LAR NO.99 OF
2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/7th CLAIMANT:
K.T.HENTRY
AGED 71 YEARS, S/O K.M. THOMAS, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682 020.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
SMT.DEENA JOSEPH
SMT.RADHIKA IYER
SMT.SONA MARIA PAULOSE
SMT.AMRUTHA PREMJITH
SMT.MEGHA RAJAPPAN
SMT.AISHWARYA SHIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, 682 021.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD - 682 021.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:ADV REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP FOR R1,
ADV CHETHAN KRISHNA FOR R2
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2026, ALONG WITH LA.Appeal Nos.33/2025, 42/2025 AND 43/2025,
THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
5
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by some among the claimants in
L.A.R.No.99/2011 of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. Their
properties were acquired for the second phase development of
Info Park, Kakkanad. The Land Acquisition Officer included their
properties in category 12, wetland without road access. The
land value was fixed as Rs.1,29,726/- per Are. Discontented
with the land value fixed by the Acquisition Officer, appellants
sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. In the claim statement filed before the Reference
Court the appellants prayed to change the category as category
No.5, high level wetland having mud road access. The Reference
Court considered the issue and rejected the contentions of the
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
appellants. Aggrieved thereby these appeals were filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent.
4. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in some identical
appeals held that the categorization of properties acquired for
the same purpose was improper and granted equal
compensation to properties included in various categories by
adopting the value fixed for the highest category. He submitted
that the appellants in these cases are not relying on the said
judgment and raising any tall claims but confining their case for
a change of category as sought before the Reference Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to prove that
their properties were having road access. It was also proved
that the properties were reclaimed. He relied on the evidence of
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
AW3 and submitted that the said witness had categorically
deposed that he had filled the land after obtaining KLU Order
before selling it in parcels to various persons including the
appellants. The evidence of AW3 shows that the entire area was
reclaimed before he sold it. AW3 claimed that he had obtained
orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, permitting
reclamation of the land. Further, Ext.A7 common order of the
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, was
complied with by AW3. By the said order the Commission had
directed AW3 to fill the land to make it suitable for construction
of buildings and to handover possession to the buyers. The
learned counsel further submitted that though an Advocate
Commissioner was deputed, by the time the inspection was
conducted, construction activities had commenced in the
acquired lands and hence no effective inspection could be
conducted. He submitted that all plots were provided with road
access by the seller. He therefore submitted that the evidence
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
on record was sufficient to conclude that the properties were
reclaimed lands with road access.
6. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.73/2014 & connected
cases and submitted that in the said judgment the Division
Bench found that the categorization by the Land Acquisition
Officer was unrealistic and not sustainable. The Division Bench
re-fixed the categories into 4 basic categories and 12 sub
categories. He submitted that reclaimed land having access to
mud/gravel road falls under category II(b) as per the judgment
of the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the
description by the Land Acquisition Officer as 'High Level
Wetland' was unrealistic. The Division Bench further held that
those are actually properties that are commonly described as
reclaimed lands or filled up lands. The learned counsel
contended that the claimants sought change of category, to
No.5 in the claim statement, on the basis of the categorization
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
by the Land Acquisition Officer. The corresponding category as
per the judgment of the Division Bench is category II(b). In LAA
No.87/2015 this Court re-fixed the land value for category II(b)
as Rs.5,14,915/- per Are. However, the Reference Court
erroneously held that the properties of the appellants will fall
only in category IV(c) and fixed the land value at Rs.2,42,312/-
per Are. The learned counsel argued that in any view of the
matter the appellants are entitled for getting the land value
fixed at Rs.5,14,915/-per Are.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
vehemently resisted the claims of the appellants. The learned
counsel submitted that absolutely no reliable evidence is
available on record to conclude that the properties of the
petitioner would actually fall within category II(b) as contended.
The learned counsel pointed out that the appellants had sought
in their claim statement to change the categorization by the
Land Acquisition Officer to category No.5, High Level Wetland
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
having mud road access. He contended that, at best, even
going by the appellants' claims, their properties may fall within
Category No.IV(b) as re-fixed by the Division Bench of this
Court, wetland having access to a mud/gravel road. He added
that no evidence is available to prove that the properties had
road access. He pointed out that the appellants produced two
photocopies of orders purported to be issued under the Land
Utilization Order. However, those documents, being inadmissible,
were not relied on by the Reference Court. AW2 deposed that
there were no such KLU Orders. He submitted that the evidence
of AW3 is not at all helpful and reliable as he could not specify
the details of properties claimed to have been filled up.
Moreover, Ext.A7 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission shows that some persons had approached the said
forum aggrieved by the failure of AW3 to reclaim the properties.
However, only 7 complaints were there before the Commission.
AW3 in his evidence stated that he had complied with the order
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
issued by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Nevertheless, the said complaints can be only in the case of
properties of 7 persons who had approached the Commission.
He stressed that the evidence can be adduced and analysed
only on the basis of the pleadings, and the pleading in the claim
statement was only for changing the category from Category
No.12 to Category No.5, High Level Wetland. Therefore, no
amount of evidence can improve the case of the appellants as
their pleading amounts to admission that the properties were
wetlands. The learned counsel submitted that none among the
appellants were examined before the Reference Court. He
therefore contended that adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against the appellants.
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader adopted the
contentions of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and
submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record to
substantiate the claims of the appellants. She submitted that if
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
the category change as sought by the appellants is granted,
then the same will result in granting huge compensation in
undeserving cases. She hence submitted that the appeals may
be dismissed confirming the findings and conclusions of the
Reference Court.
9. Appellants heavily relied on the evidence of AW3 as
also on Exts.A7, A11 and A12. Though AW3 stated that he had
reclaimed the land and thereafter sold it in several parts,
Annexure-A7 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission shows that the Company of AW3 had not filled up
the lands as promised and some of the buyers approached the
Commission. Though AW3 stated that he complied with the
directions in Ext.A7, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent, only a handful of buyers had
approached the Commission. Therefore, even if the statement
that the directions in Ext.A7 were complied with is accepted, it
is not sufficient to hold that all the properties were filled up by
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
AW3. In this context, the pleading of the appellants in their
claim statement assumes relevance. They sought a change to
Category No.5-High Level Wetland having mud road access, as
per the categorization made by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the Division Bench of this Court found that categorization as
High Level Wetland was improper and held that such properties
are reclaimed lands, and hence that the intention of the
appellants was to claim compensation by treating their
properties as reclaimed lands falling under Category No.II(b),
the said contention cannot be accepted because the judgment of
the Division Bench relied on by the appellants was rendered
much after the filing of the claim statements. Therefore, at the
time of filing of the claim statements the appellants could not
have imagined that High Level Wetlands would mean reclaimed
lands. Hence it can be safely concluded that the appellants had
conceded in their claim statement that their properties are
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
wetlands. Nevertheless, they claimed that the properties had
mud road access. The learned counsel for the appellants had
pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the
Reference Court could not conduct an effective inspection as
possession was taken and construction work had commenced in
the acquired properties. However, the learned counsel submitted
that all plots were provided with road access when the company
of AW3 sold the plots. I find force in the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants that the parties were disabled
from adducing evidence through the inspection report of the
Advocate Commissioner by the peculiar circumstances. The
Commissioner had reported that the work for construction of a
four-line road and piling work in the acquired properties had
commenced when she inspected the properties. Therefore, I am
of the view that the appellants claim that the properties had
access to mud road cannot be ignored. As the properties were
sold by the Company of AW3 in small plots, naturally every plot
2026:KER:14797
L.A.A.Nos.33, 42, 43 & 48 of 2025
might have been provided with road access. Hence, I hold that
the contention of the appellants in this regard is probable.
Wetland having access to mud/gravel road was classified under
category IV(b) in LAA.No.87/2015. The land value for such
properties was fixed as Rs.3,43,276/- per Are.
In view of the above discussion, I hold that the properties
of the appellants are liable to be included in category IV(b).
The land value shall be re-fixed as Rs.3,43,276/- per Are. The
appellants shall be entitled for all consequential as well as
statutory benefits also. The appeals are thus partly allowed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
