High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeals allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 6...
LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017
Case / Petition Number:LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 of 2017
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2019-07-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeals are allowed. The land value fixed by the reference court is enhanced and refixed at Rs. 6,70,000 per Are. The appellants are entitled to admissible statutory benefits and proportionate costs on that basis. All interlocutory applications in the appeals are closed.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,70,000 per Are; statutory benefits and costs awarded; interlocutory applications closed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SHAJAHAN Y. BISMILLAH COTTAGE
- SHAJAHAN S/O HAJI K. YUNUSKUTTY
- SEENATH D/O SHAMSUDHEEN
- SHAJAHAN Y BISMILLAH COTTAGE
- SULFATH W/O SHAJAHAN
- YUSUF SIDDIQUE KODIMEL KODI PUTHEN VEEDU
- SHAHIDA W/O YUSUF SIDDIQUE
Respondents
- The State of Kerala represented by District Collector, Civil Station, Kollam - 691013
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Siju Kamalasanan
- • Kavya Soman
- • Reny Anto
- • S.Seetha
- • Pratheesh P
- • S.Abhilash
Counsels for Respondents
- • B.R.Muraleedharan
Case Synopsis & Summary
Five Land Acquisition Appeals arise under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning compensation for lands acquired for widening Mulakkada–Vadi Road in Kollam District following a 04.06.2010 notification. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs. 4,31,353 per Are; claimants sought higher compensation and the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 5,21,937 per Are. The claimants produced Exts A1–A4 (pre- and post-notification sale deeds) and engaged an Advocate Commissioner to establish the lands’ location, nature, and comparability. The Reference Court rejected most post-notification deeds as non-comparable but relied on the basis document and Commissioner’s report, noting the acquired lands were better placed than the basis land. It fixed the land value by treating the acquired lands as better placed by 30% and adding 10% cost escalation, applying the Supreme Court principle in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745. The appellants contended the basis land was distant from Kollam town and in a residential area, while the acquired lands lay in a commercial, more developed setting near Kollam; they sought higher compensation. The High Court allowed the appeals, enhanced the land value to Rs.6,70,000 per Are, applied the cited principle, and awarded statutory benefits and costs. All interlocutory applications were closed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants submitted that the basis land lies in a different, relatively less developed area compared to the acquired lands, which abutted the widening project and were situated in a more commercial and central locale near Kollam. They relied on Exts A1–A4, including a post-notification sale, to argue better comparable lands exist, and contended that the reference court should reflect higher values, accounting for locational advantages, development around Kollam, and cost escalation. They argued that the acquired lands’ proximity to commercial activity and institutions made them superior, warranting a higher rate than Rs. 5,21,937 per Are, as fixed by the reference court. They pressed for application of the Supreme Court principle (the ONGC v Patel rule) to determine a fairer compensation and sought proportional costs.
Contentions of Respondents
The State’s position emphasized the need for careful comparability among lands and reliance primarily on the basis document and the Advocate Commissioner’s report. It argued that many pre-notification sale deeds were not truly comparable and that the reference court’s approach was sound, noting that improvements in the location were not conclusively established as warranting the substantial uplift claimed. The State maintained that the final figure should reflect a reasonable enhancement within the framework of established precedents and the evidence on record, and urged against an excessive uplift beyond what comparable data supported.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel | 2008 (14) SCC 745 | Positive | The court explicitly applied the principle from this Supreme Court decision to determine land value, treating the basis land and applying cost escalation and uplift to reach the revised per-are figure. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941**
## **LA.App..No.354 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2016 IN LAR 154/2013 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT :-**
**SHAJAHAN Y. BISMILLAH COTTAGE, BEACH NORTH WARD, PATTATHANAM P.O. KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN KUM.KAVYA SOMAN SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA SRI.S.ABHILASH**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE :-**
**THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 013.**
**BY SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..343/2017, LA.App..355/2017, LA.App..399/2017, LA.App..407/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**2**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941**
**LA.App..No.343 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2016 IN LAR 152/2013 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT :-**
**SHAJAHAN S/O HAJI K. YUNUSKUTTY, BISMILLAH COTTAGE, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST, PATTATHANAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN KUM.KAVYA SOMAN SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA SRI.S.ABHILASH**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE :-**
**THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.691013**
## **BY SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..354/2017, LA.App..355/2017, LA.App..399/2017, LA.App..407/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**3**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941 LA.App..No.355 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2016 IN LAR 165/2013 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT :-**
**SEENATH D/O SHAMSUDHEEN, ASANVELI PUTHEN VEEDU,VALIYAKADACHERRY, KOLLAM NORTH, PALLITHOTTAM PO,KOLLAM.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN KUM.KAVYA SOMAN SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA SRI.S.ABHILASH**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE :-**
**THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 013.**
**BY SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..354/2017, LA.App..343/2017, LA.App..399/2017, LA.App..407/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**4**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941**
**LA.App..No.399 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2016 IN LAR 166/2013 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS :-**
**1 SHAJAHAN Y BISMILLAH COTTAGE, BEACH NORTH WARD,PATTATHANAM PO, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**2 SULFATH W/O SHAJAHAN, BISMILLAH COTTAGE, BEACH NORTH WARD,PATTATHANAM PO, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN KUM.KAVYA SOMAN SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.S.ABHILASH**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE :-**
**THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691013**
**BY SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..354/2017, LA.App..343/2017, LA.App..355/2017, LA.App..407/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**5**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941**
**LA.App..No.407 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2016 IN LAR 153/2013 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM**
## **APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS :-**
**1 YUSUF SIDDIQUE KODIMEL KODI PUTHEN VEEDU,VALIYAKADA CHERRY,PATTATHANAM.P.O,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM. 2 SHAHIDA W/O YUSUF SIDDIQUE,KODIMEL KODI PUTHEN VEEDU,VALIYAKADA CHERRY,PATTATHANAM.P.O,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN KUM.KAVYA SOMAN SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.S.ABHILASH**
## **RESPONDENT/STATE :-**
**THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,KOLLAM - 691 013.**
**BY SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..354/2017, LA.App..343/2017, LA.App..355/2017, LA.App..399/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**6**
## **LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
## **LAA NOS.343, 354, 355, 399 & 407 OF 2017**
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **JUDGMENT**
These appeals are directed against the decrees and judgments in five references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) in respect of lands acquired for widening Mulakkada - Vadi Road in Kollam District, pursuant to a notification issued under the Act on 04.06.2010.
2. The extent of the acquired lands are trivial. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.4,31,353/- per Are for the acquired lands. Dissatisfied with the land value fixation made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference for adjudication. Before the reference court, the claimants sought enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per Are. The reference court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.5,21,937/- per Are by a common judgment. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the land value fixation made by the reference court that the claimants have come up in these appeals.
**LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**7**
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Government Pleader.
4. As noted, the acquired lands are lands abutting the road for the widening of which they were acquired. In order to justify the enhancement claimed, the claimants have placed on record four documents, which are marked in the proceedings as Exts.A1 to A4. In addition, they have given oral evidence as well. The claimants have also taken out a Commission to report the lie and nature of the acquired lands, the basis land as also the lands covered by the various documents produced by them, on the basis of which enhanced compensation is claimed. Among the four documents placed on record, Ext.A2 is a post notification sale deed. The reference court did not place reliance on the said document on that ground. The remaining documents are pre-notification sale deeds. The reference court, however, found that the lands covered by the remaining documents are not comparable lands, as all the said lands are better placed, when compared to the acquired lands. On an analysis of the materials on record, the reference court found that the land covered by the basis document is one comparable to the acquired lands. It, however, found that the basis document being one executed on 20.07.2007, the land value
**LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**8**
should have been fixed by the reference court having regard to the cost escalation as well. It is in the said circumstances that the reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value at Rs.5,21,937/- per Are.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the basis land is a land situated on the south-west of the Kollam civil station at about one kilometer away and the acquired lands are situated on the north-east of the Kollam civil station at about one kilometer away. It was pointed out that the heart of Kollam town is on the north-east of the Kollam civil station and the acquired lands are situated on the heart of Kollam town. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the basis land is situated in a purely residential area, whereas the acquired lands are situated in a commercial area. In order to buttress the stand that the acquired lands are situated in a commercial area, the learned counsel has relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, wherein the particulars of large number of institutions existing in and around the acquired lands are mentioned. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, was that the acquired lands are better lands when compared to the basis land.
6. As noted, the reference court cannot be faulted
**LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**9**
for having not placed reliance on a post notification sale deed. Likewise, for not placing reliance on the remaining documents also, satisfactory reasons have been stated by the reference court. In other words, the materials available for arriving at the land value were only the basis document and the report of the Advocate Commissioner indicating the locational importance of the acquired lands. The report of the Advocate Commissioner gives sufficient data to make a comparison between the acquired lands and the basis land. As noted, it has come out that the basis land is one situated on the south-west of the Kollam civil station at about one kilometer away and the acquired lands are situated on the north-east of the Kollam civil station at about one kilometer away. It has also come out that the heart of Kollam town is on the north-east of the Kollam civil station and the acquired lands are situated closer to the Kollam town when compared to the basis land. It has also come out that the basis land is situated in a purely residential area and the acquired lands are situated in a better developed commercial-cumresidential area. It has further come out that there are large number of institutions, commercial and others, in and around the acquired lands. Having regard to the materials on record, I am of the view that the land value can be fixed for the acquired
## **LA.App..Nos.354, 343, 399,355 & 407 OF 2017**
**10**
lands treating them as better placed when compared to the basis land by 30% and by adding cost escalation at 10%. If land value is worked out on that basis applying the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in **General Manager, Oil and**
## **Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai**
**Patel** , (2008) 14 SCC 745, the land value shown in the basis document being Rs.5,02,792/-, the same would come to Rs.6,69,266/- which can be rounded off to Rs.6,70,000/-
In the result, the land acquisition appeals are allowed. The land value fixed by the reference court is enhanced and refixed at Rs.6,70,000/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled to admissible statutory benefits and proportionate costs on that basis. All the interlocutory applications in the appeals are closed.
Sd/-
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE**
## **SMA**