Krishna Kumar & Saji Koshy George & Subash V. George & Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala and Others (WA Nos.1560/2020 & 1318/2020)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WA.No.1560 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8139/2020(R) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18.8.2020** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.CHANDRA SEKHARAN NAIR, PIONEER COTTAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **2 SAJI KOSHY GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. KOSHY GEORGE, KARAYAM VATTATHU VEETTIL, NANNUVAKKAD MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **3 SUBASH V. GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.GEORGE VADAKKEVEETTIL, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.** - **4 MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, PARVATHY SADANAM, NADUVATTOM P.O., PALLIPAD MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPUZHA-690 512.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAGADEESH SMT.V.RENJU SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR (SR) FOR APPELLANTS** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADV. C.V. JYOTHIRAJ.** **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARTY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 2 :: - **3 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (C), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **6 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-695 645.** - **8 THE DISTRICT JUDGE (ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE), DISTRICT COURT, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-695 645.** - **9 THE HON. REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.** - **10 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **11 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **12 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA), PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **13 THE DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE, HEADED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW** **SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU, SR. G.P. FOR R2 TO R8, R10-R13** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1318/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 3 :: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **WA.No.1318 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31579/2019(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18.8.2020** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. CHANDRA SEKHARAN NAIR, PIONEER COTTAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 2 SAJIKOSHY GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. KOSHY GEROGE, KARAYAM VATTATHUVEETTIL, NANNUVAKKAD MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 3 SUBASH V. GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. GEORGE VADAKKEVEETTIL, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 4 MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, PARAVATHY SADANAM, NADUVATTOM P.O., PALLIPAD MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-690512.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAGADEESH SMT.V.RENJU SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR(SR) FOR APPELLANTS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, (DELETED) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **R1-CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IS SUO MOTO DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/10/2020.** WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 4 :: - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA -695645.** - **5 THE HON. DISTRICT JUDGE (ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE) (DELETED) DISTRICT COURT, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-695645.** - **6 THE HON. REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) (DELETED) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682031.** - **(R5 AND R6 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/20/2020.)** - **7 THE BAR ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.** - **8 SMT. VEENA GEORGE, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MLA), CAMP OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.** **R2-4 SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU, SR. G.P. R6 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1560/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 5 :: **“C.R”** ## **JUDGMENT** [ WA.1560/2020, WA.1318/2020 ] Dated this the 11[th] day of December, 2020 ## **S. MANIKUMAR, CJ** Instant writ appeals are filed challenging the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 31579 of 2019 & 8139 of 2020 dated 18.08.2020, by which a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petitions holding thus: “9. In the light of the revised fixation, it is appropriate to direct the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to forward the revised proposal to the State Government forthwith to initiate action for acquiring the land. The revised proposal shall be acted upon by the Government for initiating land acquisition proceedings. The District Judge, Pathanamthitta, is also directed to make necessary requests based on this direction before the District Collector to initiate action. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.31579/2019, Sri. V. Sethunath submits that this valuation is not proper and the land was converted long before the Act 28/2008 came into force. Therefore, the valuation as above does not reflect the actual market value. It is to be noted that what should be the potential market value can be decided by the competent authority if the land owners are not satisfied with the award to be passed in the land acquisition proceedings. As of now, based on the relevant records, the land acquisition officer can only determine the market value in accordance with the fair value as referred above. Therefore, WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 6 :: leaving open the contention of the land owners, these writ petitions are disposed of as above. Needful shall be done by the Principal District Judge as well as the District Collector to forward the proposal to the Government within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the Government shall take appropriate decision thereon within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the above said proposal.” 2. Since the subject matter involved in these two appeals is common, the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both the writ appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.31579 of 2019. They are the land owners, whose land have been identified for establishing the District Court Complex in Pathanamthitta District. On account of the considerable delay in finalising the proceedings for land acquisition, the appellants have approached the writ court, solely on the ground, as to how the quantum of compensation has to be determined. The appellants have also expressed their willingness for a negotiated purchase by the Government. 4. W.P.(C) No.31579 of 2019 has been filed for the following reliefs: - A) “Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents, to expedite the acquisition proceedings as per Exhibits-P2 to P16. - B) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents not to change the properties sought to be acquired and earmarked for WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 7 :: the last 10 years. - C) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, to pay compensation of land value along with 12% interest for prohibiting all sort of activities in the land described in Exhibit-P1, for the last ten years. - D) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents, to pay 12% interest for the last ten years, in the event of acquisition of the lands.” ## 5. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.8139 of 2020 has been filed for the following reliefs: “A) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 6 and 9 to 12 to take effective steps to complete the acquisition of 6 Acres of land situated (242.91 Ares) in Survey Nos.102/10, 102/11, 102/12, 110/01, 110/02, 110/03AB, 110/04, 110/05, 110/6-1, 142/6A, 142/6B, 142/17A, 142/7B of Pathanamthitta Village, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District for the construction of Court complex in Pathanamthitta and complete the entire process of acquisition of land within a time limit to be specified by this Court. - B) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing 3[rd] respondent to take further action for completion of land acquisition for court complex in Pathanamthitta as mentioned in Exhibits-P8 and P10 communications sent by the 8[th] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent. WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 8 :: - C) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing 2[nd] respondent to take appropriate action on Exhibit P12, within a time limit to be specified by this Court.” 6. W.A. No.1318 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.31579 of 2019, who are Krishna Kumar, Saji Koshy George, Subash V. George, and Muraleedharan. W.A. No.1560 of 2020 is filed by the appellants, who are not parties to W.P.(C) No.8139 of 2020, but they are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.31579 of 2019, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. 7. Appellants, in both the writ appeals, state that their properties comprising a large extent of 242.91 Ares in Pathanamthitta village are earmarked for acquisition to construct District Court Complex at Pathanamthitta. They further stated that land acquisition proceedings were lagging for a long time and the appellants sought for a direction to expedite the acquisition proceedings. 8. By Exhibit-P4 judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 7137 of 2012 & 27479 of 2013 dated 7.8.2014 and Exhibit-P5 judgment in W.A. No.1359 of 2014 dated 4.11.2014, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the acquisition proceedings would be strictly under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and as per the said Act, the District Collector is the competent authority to fix the market value of WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 9 :: the property, in terms of the criteria, as the different procedures mentioned therein. 9. Writ court, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.31579 of 2019 by the impugned judgment, directed the District Collector to revise the valuation of the property after adverting to the fair value and to forward revised proposal to the Government. It is submitted that the said direction of the learned single Judge is beyond the scope of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the instant appeals raising the following grounds. A. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous to the extent that it did not advert to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The aforesaid Act of 2013 is a self contained code dealing with every aspect of land acquisition and the learned Single Judge went wrong in giving directions to the Acquisitioning Authority contrary to the scheme of the Act of 2013. B. The concept of "fair value" employed by the learned Single Judge is quite different from the scheme of Section 26 of the Act. What is contemplated and defined under the Act of 2013 is the market value and not the fair value. Section 26 empowers the District Collector to determine the market value adopting various criteria mentioned in the said section. In view of such elaborate provisions contained in the Act of 2013, WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 10 :: there is no scope for intervention by any authority issuing guidelines for determination of such market value. C. It is respectfully submitted that it was inappropriate on the part of the learned Single Judge who had considered the meetings of various committees, discussing and deliberating the acquisition proceedings, as part of the requisitioning authority, to have issued directions on the judicial side, as to how the District Collector should fix the valuation of the property. D. Learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions to the District Collector to revise the valuation adverting to the fair value when there was existence of express provisions for the acquisition of land and determination of its value. The learned Single Judge also went wrong in directing the District Collector to act upon the fair value of the land when it was within the exclusive discretion of the District Collector as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. E. Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that shortage of funds for implementation of the project could be made good by reducing the extent of land to be acquired to the minimum. At present, six Acres of land are sought to be acquired for construction of the court complex. F. The acquisition proceedings which were directed to be held exclusively under the Act of 2013 ought to have been left to the authorities under the Act to commence the acquisition proceedings without there being any conditions imposed. In view of G.O.(Rt.) No.2440/16/RD WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 11 :: dated 27.05.2016, whereby Government have accorded sanction for negotiated purchase on the basis of a consensus to be reached, there was no scope for the Learned Single Judge for issuing directions to revise the valuation of the property. 10. Contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the direction to the District Collector to revise the valuation of the property, after adverting to the fair value and to forward revised proposal to the Government is contrary to the scheme under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act of 2013'). 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that Section 26 of the Act, 2013 empowers the District Collector to determine the market value, by adopting various criteria set out in the said Section and it is not the fair value fixed by the Government, to determine the quantum of Compensation. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, 2013, there is no scope for intervention by any authority to issue guidelines for determination of such market value. 12. Mr. G. Shrikumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, further submitted that the said finding and direction of the learned Single Judge is contrary to Section 26 of the Act, 2013. WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 12 :: 13. Mr. T.K. Aravinda Kumar Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the fair value of the property is one of the factors to be taken note of while determining the market value. 14. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader, and perused the material available on record. 15. Before adverting to the rival submissions, let us consider as to what the Legislature in Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, has intended while determining the quantum of compensation to be paid for the land, ought to be acquired by any mode, permissible under the 2013 Act. Whether the Legislature has intended fair value or market value of the property, and whether the direction of the learned Single Judge, that the land Acquisition officer can determine the market value of the subject property, only in accordance with the fair value of the property, fixed by the Government, or not, are the questions raised in these appeals. 16. Before proceeding further, let us consider as to what Section 2(fa) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, states. Section 2(fa) of the said Act reads thus: “2. **Definitions-** In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-(a) xxxx (b) xxxx [(fa)] “fair value of land” means the fair value of land fixed under Section 28 A” WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 13 :: 17. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 69 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959), read with Sections 28A, 45A and 45C thereof, Government of Kerala have framed the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995. Rules 3 and 4 of the said Rules, 1995, speak about the fixation of fair value of the land and the publication of fair value of the land, respectively, and they are extracted hereunder: “ **3. Fixation of Fair Value of Land** .—(1) The Revenue Divisional Officer, shall for the purpose of fixation of fair value of land as required under Section 28A of the Act, ascertain the fair value of land by classifying the lands as those lying in (i) Municipal Corporation Areas (ii) Municipalities and (iii) Rural areas. (2) Within each of the above categories, the lands may again be classified as commercial area, residential area, areas adjoining railway station, bus stations, factories, educational institutions etc., agricultural lands (wet and dry) and others as provided in sub-section (2) of the said section. [(3) Based on the above classification and categorization to be used for comparative valuation, in the same village/area/survey number, for different types of land and also considering the mitigating circumstances, if any, such as land being rocky/waterlogged or in close proximity to dumping yards, graveyards, or similar other circumstances, the RDO shall fix a draft of the fair value of lands in his jurisdiction. (4) The draft of the fair value prepared under sub-rule (3) shall be notified in the Gazette, inviting objections or suggestions, if any, thereon from interested persons. (5) Copies of the notifications published under sub-rule (4) shall be exhibited in conspicuous places in the office of the RDO, the taluk offices, the village offices, offices of the Grama Panchayats concerned. (6) The objections and suggestions under sub-rule (4) shall be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officers concerned within a period of sixty days from the date of notification of the draft fair value in Gazette. WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 14 :: (7) After the expiry of the period fixed under sub-rule (6) the RDO shall consider, on merit, the objections and suggestions received within the time limit and shall fix the final fair value of lands in his jurisdiction within a period of sixty days from the date of expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (6). (8) Fair value shall be fixed in units of “Are”.] ## **4. Publication of fair value of land.—** (1) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after having fixed the fair value of the land as provided in Rule 3, publish a notification in Form ‘A’ appended to these rules and cause copies of the same exhibited in his office, the Taluk Office, the Village Office, Office of the local body and Offices of the District Registrar and Sub-Registrars concerned. (2) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall forward copies of the notification to the Superintendent of Government Presses for publication in the Official Gazette and to the District Collector, the Board of Revenue and the Government for information. (3) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall also forward copies of the Notification to the Inspector General of Registration, the District Registrar and the Sub-Registrars concerned.” 18. Let us consider as to how fair value of the property has to be determined as per Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, in juxtaposition to Section 26 of the Act, 2013. Section 28 A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 ## [ **28A. Fixation of fair value of land.-** (1) Every Revenue Divisional Officer shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, fix the fair value of the lands situate within the area of his jurisdiction, for the purpose of determining the duty chargeable at the time of registration of instruments involving lands. *[(1A) Subject to such rules as may Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 **26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.–** (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:— (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 15 :: be prescribed, the fair value of land fixed under subsection (1) may be revised by the Revenue Divisional Officer every five years or earlier if so directed by the Government, if in the opinion of the Government any substantial change of the fair value of land has taken place. (1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, the Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, make an increase of a fixed percentage in the fair value of land fixed as per subsection (1) from time to time, before revision is made under sub-section (1A) and the value so increased shall be deemed to be the fair value of the land.]* (2) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall, in fixing the fair value of a land under subsection (1), have regard inter alia to the following matters, namely:— (a) development of the area in which the land is situate such as the commercial importance, facilities for water supply, electricity, transport and communication; (b) proximity of the land to markets, bus stations, railway stations, factories, educational institutions or other institutions; (c) the geographical lie of the land, the nature of the land such as dry, waste, wet or garden land, fertility, nature of crop, yielding capacity and cost of cultivation; and (d) such other matters as may be provided in the rules made under this Act. (3) The fair value of land fixed under sub-section (1) *[and the revised fair value of land fixed under subsection price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11. **Explanation 1** .—The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made. **Explanation 2** .—For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account. **Explanation 3.** —While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. **Explanation 4.** —While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 16 :: (1A)]* shall be published in such manner as may be provided in the rules made under this Act. (4) Any person aggrieved by the fixation of fair value under subsection (1) *[or the revision of fair value under sub-section (1A)]* may, within *[one year]* of its publication under sub-section (3), appeal to the Collector. [(5) After the publication of the increased fair value of land under sub-section (1B), any person aggrieved by the fixation of fair value of land in an appeal under sub-section (4) may, within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1B), file an application to the Collector to review the order passed in appeal and the Collector shall dispose of the same in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.] Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value. (2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. (3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that— (a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or (b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or (c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas: Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent, of the value so calculated under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be: Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 17 :: been acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-section (1): Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area: Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. 19. Let us also understand as to what is the purpose, for which Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 has been enacted and the rules have been framed, and what is the intent of the Legislature to enact the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is discernible that the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 has been enacted and the Kerala Stamp (Fair Value) Rules, 1995 have been framed for the purpose of determining stamp duty, to be paid on a instrument, which is different from the factors to be taken note of by the competent authority, under the State and Central Acts and the latter, for determining the compensation, to be paid to the land owner or any person interested, in the land sought to be acquired. Market value and fair value are two WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 18 :: different concepts. The fair value determined under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder, cannot be said to be the market value of the property. Determination of the fair value is to avoid evasion of stamp duty to the Government and to ensure that appropriate stamp duty is paid, on the instrument, sought to be registered. Intent of the Legislature, State and Central, is distinct and different, occupying different subjects; one for payment of stamp duty to the Government by the executant of the document, for the purpose of registration; and the other for the purpose of determination of compensation, to be paid to the land owners or any person interested, in the land sought to be acquired, by the requisition body. 20. Now let us consider a few decisions as to whether courts can alter or change the words in the Legislature. (i) It is a well settled law of interpretation that when the words of the statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. Reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in **Nelson Motis v. Union of India** reported in AIR 1992 SC 1981. (ii) In **Institute of C.A. of India v. Ajit Kumar Iddya** reported in AIR 2003 Kant. 187, the Karnataka High Court held thus: “So far as the cardinal law of interpretation is concerned, it is settled that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to be read with the clear intention of the legislation. Otherwise also, any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. In WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 19 :: other words, it is not proper to use a sense, which is different from what the word used ordinarily conveys. The duty of the Court is not to fill up the gap by stretching a word used. It is also settled that a provision is to be read as a whole and while interpreting, the intention and object of the legislation have to be looked upon. However, each case depends upon the facts of its own.” ## (iv) In **State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh** reported in (2005) 10 SCC 437, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "12. It is said that a statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting or construing a statute is to gather the _mens or sententia legis_ of the legislature. 13. Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words used in the statute as a medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. The task is not easy as the "language" is often misunderstood even in ordinary conversation or correspondence. The tragedy is that although in the matter of correspondence or conversation the person who has spoken the words or used the language can be approached for clarification, the legislature cannot be approached as the legislature, after enacting a law or Act, becomes functus officio so far as that particular Act is concerned and it cannot itself interpret it. No doubt, the legislature retains the power to amend or repeal the law so made and can also declare its meaning, but that can be done only by making another law or statute after undertaking the whole process of law-making. 14. Statute being an edict of the legislature, it is necessary that it is expressed in clear and unambiguous language..... 15. Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a lawmaker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 20 :: crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so. (See Frankfurter: Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in Essays on Jurisprudence, Columbia Law Review, p. 51.) 16. It is true that this Court in interpreting the Constitution enjoys a freedom which is not available in interpreting a statute and, therefore, it will be useful at this stage to reproduce what Lord Diplock said in _**Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs**_ [(1980 (1) All.ER 529] (All ER at p. 542C-d): "It endangers continued public confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the continuance of the rule of law, if judges, under the guise of interpretation, provide their own preferred amendments to statutes which experience of their operation has shown to have had consequences that members of the court before whom the matter comes consider to be injurious to the public interest." ## (v) In **Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission** reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “It is well settled that courts will not add words to a statute or read into the statute words not in it. Even if the courts come to the conclusion that there is any omission in the words used, it cannot make up the deficiency, where the wording as it exists is clear and unambiguous. While the courts can adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislative or the rule-making authority, it cannot set at naught the legislative intent clearly expressed in a statute or the rules.” ## (vi) In **Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust & Ors. v. A.G.Syed Mohideen & Ors.** [2010 CIJ 273 SC (1)], it was held thus:, "6. It is now well settled that a provision of a statute should have to be read as it is, in a natural manner, plain and straight, without adding, substituting or omitting any words. While doing so, the words used in the provision should be assigned and ascribed their natural, ordinary or popular WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 21 :: meaning. Only when such plain and straight reading, or ascribing the natural and normal meaning to the words on such reading, leads to ambiguity, vagueness, uncertainty, or absurdity which were not obviously intended by the Legislature or the Lawmaker, a court should open its interpretation tool kit containing the settled rules of construction and interpretation, to arrive at the true meaning of the provision. While using the tools of interpretation, the court should remember that it is not the author of the Statute who is empowered to amend, substitute or delete, so as to change the structure and contents. A court as an interpreter cannot alter or amend the law. It can only interpret the provision, to make it meaningful and workable so as to achieve the legislative object, when there is vagueness, ambiguity or absurdity. The purpose of interpretation is not to make a provision what the Judge thinks it should be, but to make it what the legislature intended it to be." ## 21. In **Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar** **and Ors.** [(2014) 13 SCC 734], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that circle rates could not form the basis and compensation has to be determined on the basis of objective criteria. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus: “7. We have heard Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellants and Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior advocate appearing for the Respondents. Though, we appreciate the anguish expressed by the High Court over the abysmally low market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collectors in almost all cases, a phenomenon which is prevalent all over the country, it is not possible to approve the exercise undertaken by the High Court for forcing the administration to prescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determination of the WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 22 :: compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensive mechanism for fixing market value and determination of the compensation payable. Any person, who feels aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference Court can avail remedy either by filing an application Under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or by filing an appeal Under Section 54 thereof. Therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to have compelled the Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquired land. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by a judicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority by application of objective criteria. 8. In the result, the appeals are disposed of by making it clear that the circle rates referred to in notification dated 23.2.2001 issued by Appellant No. 1 shall not constitute the sole criteria for fixing market value of the acquired land and the Land Acquisition Collector shall be free to make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case include circle rates.” ## 22. Following the decision in _**Ajay Kumar** 's_ case (cited supra), in **Union of India v. Savitri Devi and Anr.** (AIR 2017 SC 5834), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: “5. It was submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the parties that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adduce the evidence before the Reference Court and call for the finding of the WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 23 :: ## Reference Court. 6. The circle rates for the purpose of stamp duty could not have been made the basis for determining the market value. Resultantly, we set aside the judgment passed by the High Court. The appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Court for deciding afresh.” 23. Though the abovesaid decisions relate to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the principles apply to the facts of the case, more so, when the Act, 2013 specifically employs the words “market value” while determining the compensation. 24. Giving due consideration to the object, intent and purpose of the enactments, the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, the rules framed thereunder, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, we are of the view that the writ court has erred in issuing the directions in the impugned judgment, confining the powers of the District Collector, only to the fixation of fair value of the property, and not the market value of the property, to be determined as per Section 26 of the Act, 2013 and, therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgement requires interference. 25. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the market value has to be fixed only as per the statutory provisions. WA.No.1560 & 1318 OF 2020 :: 24 :: 26. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, that the acquisition proceedings are for the purpose of construction of court complexes, which is pending for more than twenty years, and that the owners of the property have already expressed their willingness for a negotiated purchase, the Government is directed to complete the process of determination of market value, in accordance with Section 26 of the Act 2003, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Writ appeals are allowed. sd/- **S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** jes/krj