Indira Rani v. State of Kerala & TRIDA (LA App. Nos. 698/2015, 695/2015, 696/2015)

**LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 1 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.** **FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946** ## **LA.APP.NO.698 OF 2015** **ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2011 IN LAR NO.564 OF 2008 OF I ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDG'S COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **INDIRA RANI TC.5/75-1, PANCHAVADI BAR, AMBALAMUKKU.** **BY ADVS. SIJU KAMALASANAN RENY ANTO S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, TRIDA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADVS.** **SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R1 SMITHA S.PILLAI, SC, R2** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..695/2015 & 696/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 2 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.** **FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946** **LA.APP.NO.695 OF 2015** **ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2011 IN LAR NO.650 OF 2008 OF I ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **INDIRA RANI T.C.5/75-1, PANCHAVADI BAR AMBALAMUKKU.** **BY ADV.SIJU KAMALASANAN RENY ANTO S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPERSENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** - **2 THE SECRETARY, TRIDA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** **BY ADVS.** **SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER,R1 SMITHA S.PILLAI, SC, R2** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App.Nos.698/2015 AND 696/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 3 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.** **FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946** **LA.APP.NO.696 OF 2015** **ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2011 IN LAR NO.524 OF 2009 OF I ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **INDIRA RANI TC 5/75-1, PANCHAVADI BAR, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM 695001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM 695001.** **BY ADVS. SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER,R1 SMITHA S.PILLAI, SC, R2** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App.Nos.698/2015 AND 695/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 4 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** _Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2025_ **[LA.App. Nos.698/2015, 695/2015, 696/2015]** These appeals are considered and disposed of together as they concern the acquisition of land from the same owner situated in the same village and acquired for the same purpose. 2. Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 in LAR Nos.650 of 2008, 524 of 2009 and 564 of 2008 of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, are challenged by filing LAA Nos. 695, 696 and 698 of 2015 respectively. The respondents viz., the State and the requisitioning authority TRIDA were respondents 1 and 2 in the said LAR. Parties are referred to as per their status in the LAR. 3. Three parcels of land lying as a single plot comprised in Sy.Nos.23/131, 26/132 and 95/169 of Kudappanakunnu Village belonging to the appellant/claimant was acquired for the purpose of widening the road from Kowdiar-Peroorkada-Vazhayila. Section 4(1) notifications were published on 03.05.2007 in LAR No.650 of 2008 and in LAR No.564 of 2008. Section 4 (1) notification in LAR No. 524 of 2009 was published on 14.12.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) fixed the land value at Rs.5,84,054/- per Are. In the **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 5 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** reference that followed, the same was re-fixed by the reference court at Rs.22,00,000/- per Are. The claimant has preferred the LAA seeking further enhancement of land value and also seeking compensation for severance and injurious affection. 4. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, Advocate for the appellant/claimant, Smt.Rekha C. Nair, learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Smt.Smitha S. Pillai Advocate for the 2nd respondent. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that in the acquired land, a bar hotel by the name and style ‘panchavadi’ was functional at the time of acquisition and the property acquired was the parking ground of the said bar hotel. Due to the lack of parking around, the claimant's business had been detrimentally affected and this aspect had not engaged the attention of the reference court. No amounts had been granted by the reference court for the severance and injurious affection. The acquisition had led to the severance of the property and placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra** [2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1029 (SC)] and **Union of India v. Ramachandra** [2022 (4) KLT **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 6 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** OnLine 1027 (SC)], it is contended that one among the six items covered by Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be taken into consideration by the court in determining the compensation is the damage sustained by reason of severing such land from the unacquired land. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by this Court in **Sivarama Pillai Purushothaman Nair v. State of Kerala and others** [2012 (2) KHC 631] and it is contended that when a part of the land is acquired by severing the same from a larger parcel of land, the damage to be taken into account shall be the damage which results directly due to such severance of the acquired property. The learned counsel vehemently contended that there was no just or reasonable basis for categorizing the various parcels of land and fixing different land values when all such lands were situated on the same stretch road and had equal or similar commercial importance. Entitlement to the same land value as that of the lands situated in A category which is said to be 11.11% higher than B category is thus claimed. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by this Court in **State of Kerala v. Sarasamma** [2025 KLT Online 1308] when land acquired is lying contiguously and is acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, adopting **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 7 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** a belting system discriminates against the landowners and ought not be adopted by the LAO or by the reference court. 6. It is brought to my notice that this Court had already disposed of a batch of LAAs in respect of the lands acquired for the same purpose situated in the same village. In the judgment dated 19.08.2015 in LAA No.351 of 2013 and connected cases which included LAA Nos.669 of 2012 and 16 of 2013, this Court had reiterated and affirmed the finding rendered while dismissing the appeal LAA No. 351 of 2013 filed by the State challenging the award of Rs.22,00,000/- per Are with respect to the same acquisition. It had also been concluded that grant of amount at the rate of Rs.26,40,000/- was not correct and the claimants therein are entitled to an amount at the rate of Rs.28,00,000/- per Are. 7. I have perused the copy of the judgment dated 19.08.2015 in LAA No.351 of 2013 and connected cases. I find that the property acquired and the purpose of acquisition in the LAAs at hand are similar to those in the above-said LAAs. As laid down by this Court in _**Sarasamma**_ (supra), when the land acquired is lying continguously and is acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, adopting a belting system discriminates against the **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 8 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** landowners. I find merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellant/claimant that there was no just or reasonable basis for categorizing the various parcels of land and fixing different land values when all such lands were situated on the same stretch road and had equal or similar commercial importance. However, regarding the severance and the consequent injury alleged to have occasioned to the rest of the land, the most relevant details regarding the relevant properties, viz., their lie, loss of value, loss of usability and earnings, if any, from them are not substantiated or discernible. Hence the claim put forth in the LAA in the said respect are not sustainable and hence declined. 8. In the light of the above, the claimant shall be entitled to land value at the rate of Rs.28,00,000/- per Are with respect to the properties acquired from her. The land value awarded in LAR Nos.650 of 2008, 524 of 2009 and 564 of 2008 of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, is thus revised and refixed at Rs.28,00,000/- per Are, commensurate to the extent of land acquired. The claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits as admissible in law. However, the claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of 958 days in LAA No.695 of 2015, 821 days **LA.APP.NO.698/2015 &conn.** 9 2025:KER:27811 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** in LAA No.696 of 2015 and 948 days in LAA No.698 of 2015, for the delay that had occasioned in filing the respective appeals. Following the dictum as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Amanullah Khan v. State of Haryana and another** [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1184], the claimant will also not be entitled to any statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation for the said periods of delay in the respective LAAs. LAAs are allowed as above. Sd/- **SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE** csl