Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeals dismissed; reference court’s enhanced v...

Land Acquisition Appeals before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (LA.Apps. 215 of 2013 and connected matters) arising from Thuruthipuram–Kottappuram bridge land acquisition

Case / Petition Number:LA.App. No. 215 of 2013 (and connected: 245/2013, 246/2013, 332/2013, 334/2013, 335/2013, 423/2013, 430/2013)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2019-03-26
Court Decision / Holding
The appeals are dismissed; the reference court’s enhanced land values are maintained. No interference with the reference court’s assessment is warranted, and the higher compensation determined for the lands stands as the operative relief.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed; reference court’s enhanced values affirmed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • State of Kerala

Respondents

  • Joseph
  • Sareesh S/o Francis
  • Cleatus S/o Joseph
  • Rev Fr Prince Padammattummel
  • Andrews S/o Kunjantha
  • Pouly Joseph
  • Antony
  • Mary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Dileep (Government Pleader)
  • • Sri.K.A. Jaleel (Additional Advocate General)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. B. Jayasankar
  • • Sri. K. A. Jaleel (Additional Advocate General)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment consolidates eight connected land acquisition appeals arising from the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for lands acquired for the Thuruthipuram–Kottappuram bridge project. The reference court had enhanced land values fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAC) for lands categorized into two zones (Category I and II), provoking the State to challenge the higher compensation. The decision hinges on the comparability of lands and the appropriateness of using prior sale deeds to set value. The court notes that the LAC relied on Ext. A1, a 1996 sale document for a property with different access, and found that the LAC’s fixation based on that document was improper. However, it also accepts the reference court’s reasoning that escalation and proximity to PWD/road access can justify higher values, citing prior Supreme Court decisions to justify escalation when valuations are anchored to earlier documents. The Advocate Commissioner’s reports and the materials show that although some lands lack direct road access, the acquired lands are near PWD roads, suggesting a reasonable basis for higher compensation. Ultimately, the court upholds the reference court’s enhanced valuations and dismisses the appeals, thereby sustaining the higher land values determined for the lands.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the Land Acquisition Officer’s valuation of Rs 48,990 per are (Category I) and Rs 46,920 per are (Category II) was far more appropriate than the reference court’s enhanced figures. It challenges the reference court’s reliance on Ext. A1 (a sale deed from 1996 showing Rs 92,972 per are) as a direct comparator, noting that the Ext. A1 land is distant and has different access, and it emphasises that pre-notification documents require careful escalation rather than direct admixture with current lands. The State relies on the grounds that the LACO’s method and the lack of direct road access of Ext. A1 undermine the basis for substantial enhancement, urging judicial restraint in invoking escalation only where comparables are truly analogous.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants urge that Ext. A1 and the Advocate Commissioner’s report demonstrate a higher market value for lands nearby, with one parcel abutting PWD and Panchayat roads, and the acquired lands being similarly accessible in practice. They rely on the escalation principle and precedents such as Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar and ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel to justify higher compensation, arguing for maintaining, if not increasing, the reference court’s enhanced valuations based on more proximate comparables and escalation norms.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar(2004) 2 SCC 283PositiveCited to justify that land value can be fixed based on prior documents with due weightage for escalation.
ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel(2008) 14 SCC 745PositiveCited to support the practice of escalation in land value and to justify using prior documents for fixing land values with escalation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Land Acquisition Appeals before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (LA.Apps. 215 of 2013 and connected matters) arising from Thuruthipuram–Kottappuram bridge land acquisition 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** # **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 215 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28-06-2012 IN LAR 40/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS IN LAR:** **STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) ERNAKULAM** **BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS IN LAR :** **JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT S/O.SENSILAVOS, CHIRAYATH,THURUTHIPPURAM ,PUTHANVELIKKARA 683 512** **BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..334/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..430/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 245 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28-06-2012 IN LAR 85/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), ERNAKULAM** **BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.S.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:** **SAREESH S/O FRANCIS, PARAPPILLY (H), THURUTHIPPURAM (H), THURUTHIPPURAM, PUTHENVELIKKARA 683512** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.JAYASANKER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..430/2013, LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..215/2013, LA.App..334/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 246 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.6.2012 IN LAR 84/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN LAR:** **STATE OF KERALA** **BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.S.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR:** **CLEATUS S/O.OUSEPH, CHIRAYATH (HOUSE), THURITHIPURAM, PUTHANVELIKKARA.** **BY ADV.SRI.B.JAYASANKAR** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..430/2013, LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..215/2013, LA.App..334/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 4 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 332 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.8.2012 IN LAR 34/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.S.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **REV PRINCE PADAMMATTUMMEL** **VIKAR,ST.FRANCIS ASSISSI CHURCH,THURUTHIPPURAM,PIN680667.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..430/2013, LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..215/2013, LA.App..334/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 5 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 334 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-08-2012 IN LAR 88/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.S.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **ANDREWS S/O.KUNJANTHA, CHIRAYATH,THURUTHIPPURAM,PUTHENVELIKKARA** **BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..430/2013, LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..215/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 6 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 335 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-08-2012 IN LAR 87/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI.DILEEP. SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:** |**1**|**SMT.POULY JOSEPH**| |---|---| ||**W/O. JOSEPH, METTEKKATTU, THURUTHIPPURAM,**| ||**PUTHENVELIKKARA - 688 594.**| |**2**|**ANTONY**| ||**S/O. JOSEPH, METTEKKATTU, THURUTHIPPURAM,**| ||**PUTHENVELIKKARA - 688 594.**| |**3**|**MARY**| ||**D/O. JOSEPH, METTEKKATTU, THURUTHIPPURAM,**| ||**PUTHENVELIKKARA - 688 594.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKER**| **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..430/2013, LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..215/2013, LA.App..334/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 7 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 423 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-08-2012 IN LAR 33/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER , SRI.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT:** **REV. FR. PRINCE PADAMMATTUMMEL, VIKAR, ST.FRANCIS ASSISI CHURCH, THURUTHIPPURAM 680 667** **BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..430/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..215/2013, LA.App..334/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 8 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **LA.App..No. 430 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-08-2012 IN LAR 35/2009 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR** ## **APPELLANT//RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT//CLAIMANT:** **REV.FR.PRINCE PADAMMATTUMMEL VIKAR, ST.FRANCIS ASSISI CHURCH, THURUTHIPPURAM683512** **BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKER** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH LA.App..423/2013, LA.App..335/2013, LA.App..332/2013, LA.App..246/2013, LA.App..245/2013, LA.App..215/2013, LA.App..334/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 9 ## **JUDGMENT** These land acquisition appeals by the State arise from the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') in respect of lands acquired for the construction of Thuruthipuram-Kottappuram bridge pursuant to a notification issued under the Act on 26.07.2007. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the lands acquired for the purpose and fixed the land value for the lands included in category I at Rs.48,990/- per Are and for the lands included in category II at Rs.46,920/- per Are. The reference court enhanced and re-fixed the land value for the lands included in category I at Rs.1,48,577/- and for the lands included in category II at Rs.1,42,478/per Are. The State is aggrieved by the re-fixation of the land value made by the reference court. Hence these appeals. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the claimants. 4. The references involved in LAA Nos.215, 245 and 246 of 2013 were disposed of by the reference court first by a common award and the references involved in the remaining cases were disposed of later following the common award earlier passed. It is seen that the land value for the acquired lands has been fixed by the Land LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 10 Acquisition Officer based on the land value shown in a document in respect of a land which has no comparison whatsoever with the acquired lands. The reference Court noticed that the acquired lands are situated very close to PWD roads and that the document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixation of land value is a document in respect of a land which has no road access. The reference court, in the circumstances, rendered a positive finding to the effect that the fixation of land value made by the Land Acquisition Officer based on the document referred to above was improper. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the reference court. 5. It is seen that enhancement was sought by the claimants in the first batch of cases based on Ext.A1 sale deed. Ext.A1 is a document executed on 12.07.1996 in respect of an item of property measuring 16.22 Ares. The land value shown therein was Rs.15,08,000/-, which would work out to be Rs.92,972/- per Are. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in the reference has reported that the nature of the acquired lands and the land covered by Ext.A1 is one and the same, though the same is situated about 3.5 kms away from the acquired lands, and the said view of the Advocate Commissioner has been endorsed by the reference court. It has come out that the land covered by Ext.A1 document is one abutting a PWD road on one side and a Panchayat road on the other side, whereas the acquired LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 11 lands do not have direct access to PWD roads. The materials on record, however, indicate that the acquired lands, at the same time, are situated very close to PWD roads. On a finespun analysis of the facts, the reference court came to the conclusion that the land covered by Ext.A1 document can certainly be equated with lands included in category I. True, it is not safe to place reliance on documents executed long prior to the notification to arrive at the land value. In the instant case, other than the document, the materials available are the awards passed in an earlier reference under the Act and the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the reference. It is seen that even the award in the reference relied upon by the claimants is one rendered based on Ext.A1 document. It appears that there was no transaction in respect of similar lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands for quite some time. It is also seen that the Advocate Commissioner has made a comparison of the land covered by Exhibit A1 and the acquired lands. In a case of this nature, in the absence of other materials, there is nothing wrong in placing reiance on Ext.A1 document in the matter of fixing the land value. In **Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar** [(2004) 2 SCC 283], the Apex Court has held that the land value can be fixed based on the land value shown in prior documents with due weightage for escalation. In **ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel** [(2008) 14 SCC 745], the Apex Court has explained that the provision for LA.App..No. 215 of 2013 AND CON.CASES 12 escalation will have to be made on an yearly basis. It was observed in the said case that the escalation of land price would be normally at the rate of 5 to 7.5 percentage in respect of lands in the village areas. If it is assumed that the acquired lands and the land covered by Ext.A1 document are similarly placed, the land value would come to Rs.1,59,014 in the year 2007, if worked out applying escalation rate at 5%. If it is assumed that the acquired lands were inferior by 15% in terms of its value when compared to the land covered by Ext.A1, the corresponding land value would be Rs.79,026/-. If the said value is taken as the land value of the acquired lands during the year 1996, the land value would come to Rs.1,35,161/- in the year 2007, if worked out applying escalation rate at 5% and Rs.1,50,015/-, if worked out applying escalation at 6%. As noted, the reference Court has re-fixed the land value for the lands included in category I only at Rs.1,48,577/- per Are and for the lands included in category II at Rs.1,42,478/- per Are. I do not therefore, find any reason to interfere with the decision of the reference court. The land acquisition appeals are without merits and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **JUDGE** **SKS**