L.A.A. No.880 of 2014, Cross Objection No.143 of 2018 in L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 and L.A.A. No.135 of 2019

**==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 1 2025:KER:24778 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR ``` ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` LA.APP. NO.880OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2014 IN LAR NO.691 ``` ``` OF 2008 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS :`** - **`1 K.VASANTHAKUMARI D/O.KOLAMMAL, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, T.C.26/1642, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** ``` 2 K.BHAVAKUMARI D/O.KOLAMMAL, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, T.C.26/1642, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ``` - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.`** ``` BY SRI. T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP FOR R1 SRI.K.A.JALEEL, FOR R2 ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH CO NO.143/2018 AND LAA NO.135/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 2 2025:KER:24778 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CO NO. 143OF 2018 IN LAA NO.880OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.2.2014 IN LAR NO.691 OF ``` ``` 2008 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`CROSS OBJECTOR/1[ST] RESPONDENT/1[ST] RESPONDENT IN LAR :`** ``` THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` BY SRI. T.K. SHAJAHAN, SR.GP ``` ``` RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND 2[ND] RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANTS& 2[ND] RESPONDENT IN LAR : ``` - **`1 K. VASANTHAKUMARI D/O.KOLAMMAL, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, T.C.26/1642, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`2 K.BHAVAKUMARI D/O.KOLAMMAL, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, T.C.26/1642, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`3 THE SECRETARY TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 3 2025:KER:24778 ``` BY ADVS. G.S.REGHUNATH, FOR R1 AND R2 K.A.JALEEL, FOR R3 ``` ``` THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App.NO.880 OF 2014 AND LAA NO.135 OF 2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 4 2025:KER:24778 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` LA.APP. NO. 135OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2014 IN LAR NO.689 ``` ``` OF 2008 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` APPELLANT/1[ST] RESPONDENT IN LAR : ``` ``` THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. T.K. SHAJAHAN, SR.GP ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & 2[ND] RESPONDENT IN LAR :`** ``` 1 K. VASANTHAKUMARI D/O. KOLAMMAL, SREKRISHNA NIVAS T.C.26/1642, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001 ``` ``` 2 K. BHAVAKUMARI, D/O. KOLAMMAL, SREKRISHNA NIVAS T.C.26/1642, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 5 2025:KER:24778 ``` 3 THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695010 ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH, FOR R1 AND R2 SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC, FOR R3 ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App.NO.880 OF 2014 AND C.O. NO.143 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 6 2025:KER:24778 ## DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & EASWARAN S., JJ. -------------------------------- L.A.A. No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 and L.A.A. No.135 of 2019 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2025 ## JUDGMENT ## Easwaran S.,J. L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in L.A.R. No.691 of 2008 and, L.A.A. No.135 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.143 of 2018 in L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 are preferred by the State for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the reference court in L.A.R. No.689 of 2008 and L.A.R. No.691 of 2008 respectively. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Land Acquisition Appeal are as follows: An extent of 0.19 Ares of land in Survey No.2845/C of Vanchiyoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram taluk was acquired for the purpose of widening the LMS - Attakulangara road (reach 3) for TRIDA. Since the land acquired was disputed to be in a ‘Puramboke land’, a negative **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 7 2025:KER:24778 award was passed on 3.4.2007 and an amount of Rs.1,70,440/- was ordered to be deposited before the trial court in view of the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 12.1.2005 in C.C. No.1517 of 2005. 3. The claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to this property. Since it was disputed that the land acquired was a Puramboke land, in view of the deposit, a claim under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also lodged. The reference court, by common judgment dated 28.2.2014, allowed the reference under Section 18 and rejected the contention of the State that the land was lying in a Puramboke. Aggrieved by the insufficiency in the grant of compensation by the reference court, the claimants have preferred L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 in which a Cross Objection has been preferred by the State with an application to condone the delay of 1362 days. 4. Heard Sri. G.S Reghunath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri. T.K. Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Cross Objector/State. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we find that the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement in view of the decision rendered by this Court in L.A.A. No.608 of 2009 dated 14.08.2013. When we perused the judgment of the Division Bench in L.A.A. No.608 of 2009 dated 14.08.2013, we found that the land value **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 8 2025:KER:24778 has been reduced from Rs.28,00,000/- to Rs.21,60,000/-. 6. Normally, in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we should interfere with the judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R. No.691 of 2008. Such interference would be normally necessitated because of the Cross Objection preferred by the State. However, it is the specific submission of Sri. G.S. Reghunath, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the State had already deposited the amount ordered by the reference court in L.A.R No.691 of 2008 and the claimants had withdrawn the same. It is in this context that we need to address the sustainability of the Cross Objection. 7. Before we address the issue raised in the Cross Objection we need to note glaring infirmities on the part of the State while preferring the L.A.A. No 135 of 2019. The said appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.689 of 2008. This reference was necessitated since the parties were at serious dispute regarding their entitlement to claim the amount. The State denied the claim of the claimants stating that the property acquired is a “Puramboke” land. The reference court on appreciation of evidence found that it is not. Aggrieved by the finding of the reference court, the State is in appeal with an application to condone the delay of 1608 days. 8. On a perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application, we find that though the judgment is dated 28.2.2014, the steps to prefer the **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 9 2025:KER:24778 Cross Objection were taken only after receipt of notice on L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 when a copy was served on 20.8.2014 in the Office of the Advocate General. It is stated that after procedural formalities, on 26.3.2015, a communication was sent from the Advocate General’s office to the District Collector, for further action. The delay between 28.2.2014 to 16.5.2015 is not explained in the affidavit. However, it is stated that the files were returned from the Advocate General’s Office to the Office of the District Collector stating that there is no scope for preferring the Cross Objection. The fact that the files were returned on 16.5.2015 is admitted. Thereafter, it is stated that on 11.10.2018 when the Land Acquisition Appeal came up for consideration before this Court in the disposal list, the learned Government Pleader had sought adjournment to verify the files and later on discussion with the Advocate General, the learned Government Pleader found that there exists good grounds for raising the Cross Objection and accordingly, on 15.10.2018, an email was sent to the District Collector for immediate action and thereafter on 22.10.2018, necessary requirements were done and on 23.10.2018 the Cross Objection was preferred with a delay of 1362 days. 9. The law regarding what constitutes sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is no longer res integra. Merely because the application seeking condonation delay is filed by the State will not enable them to seek leniency of the Court. In the present case, **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 10 2025:KER:24778 when we delve upon the facts as disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay, we find that the delay between 16.5.2015 till 23.10.2018 is not satisfactorily explained. It is admitted by both parties across the Bar that the State had complied with the decree and deposited the amount ordered by the reference court enabling the claimant to withdraw the same. The impact of such withdrawal on the continuation of these proceedings will be discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs. 10. In Perumon Bhagavathy Devaswom Perinadu Village vs. Bhargavi Amma (D) and Lrs. reported in [2008 (8) SCC 321], the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the courts will be justified in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if a valuable right had accrued to the other party. 11. In Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others [2002 (3) SCC 195] the Supreme Court held that if a valuable right had accrued on the opposite side, the court would be slow to condone the delay. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs. Union of India and others [2020 (13) SCC 745], wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay, the well-accepted position is that the accrued right on the opposite party cannot be likely dealt with. We are not going to burden ourselves with the more precedents on what constitutes a sufficient cause qua the **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 11 2025:KER:24778 valuable right which accrued on the opposite party. 12. Suffice to say, we are inclined to hold that the State having allowed a valuable right to accrue on the claimants and added to the above failing to explain properly the delay in preferring the appeal, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2019 in L.A.A. No 135 of 2019 and consequently the appeal is also dismissed. 13. Next, we must consider the impact of the dismissal of the L.A.A. No.135 of 2019 on the Cross Objection. Though we have found that the claimants are not entitled for enhancement, the question before us is whether we should interfere with the Judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.691 of 2008. The compelling fact which persuades us not to interfere with the said judgment is that the State, on its own volition, complied with the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.691 of 2008 rendered on 28.2.2014 and deposited the amount before the reference court and allowed the claimants to withdraw the amount. Such a conscious act on the part of the State constitutes acquiescence and estoppel and consciously allowing valuable right to accrue on the claimants. According to us, the claimants were at no fault if the State had deposited the amount on its own will and later allowed the claimants to withdraw the amount. At this point of time, if we are to interfere with such action, we will be interfering with a valuable right that accrued on the **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 12 2025:KER:24778 claimants. Though the learned Government Pleader asserts before us that in the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in L.A.A. No.608 of 2009, the inevitable consequence should follow and this Court is bound to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the reference court, we are of the considered view that inasmuch as the State has allowed a valuable right to be accrued to the claimants, we cannot subscribe to the argument raised on behalf of the State by the learned Government Pleader. 14. There is yet another reason as to why the Cross Objection has to fail. The reference court had considered L.A.R. No.689 of 2008 and L.A.R. No.691 of 2008 and rendered a common judgment. We have already found that the delay in filing L.A.A. No.135 of 2019 cannot be condoned and resultantly the appeal is also dismissed. In such circumstances, the Cross Objection which is preferred in L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 which is against L.A.R. No.691 of 2008 by itself cannot be independently maintained. Still further we note that though the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench in L.A.A. No.608 of 2009 was rendered on 14.8.2013, the State did not bring it to the notice of the reference court in L.A.R. No.691 of 2008 when the judgment was rendered on 28.2.2014 and that further, voluntarily deposited the amount ordered by the reference court and thereafter preferred the Cross Objection on 23.10.2018 with an application for condonation of **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** LAA No.880 of 2014, Cross objection No.143 of 2018 in LAA No.880 of 2014 and LAA No.135 of 2019 13 2025:KER:24778 delay. Though, we find from the records that by order dated 7.2.2019, the delay has been condoned by the Single Bench, without noticing all these aspects, we find that inasmuch as the State has voluntarily made a deposit and allowed the claimants to withdraw the same, it would be unconscionable on the part of the State to press for a hearing on the Cross Objection on merits for restitution of the amounts from the claimants. As an upshot of these discussions, we find that none of the parties are entitled to succeed in these appeals. Accordingly, L.A.A. No.880 of 2014, the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement and Cross Objection No.143 of 2018 preferred by the State against L.A.A. No.880 of 2014 is dismissed. CM. Application No.1 of 2019 in L.A.A. No.135 of 2019 for condoning the delay of 1608 days in preferring the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/EASWARAN S. JUDGE NS