High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-01-22Review petition allowed; judgment in L.A.A.No.7...

RP.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010

Case / Petition Number:RP.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
R. Narayana Pisharadi
Judgment Date: 2019-01-22
Court Decision / Holding: Review petition allowed. The judgment dated 25.03.2011 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 is reviewed and modified, refixing the value of the land at Rs.2,25,000 per Are. The claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits; however, they are not entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount for the 1422 days of delay in filing the review petition. No costs.
Final Disposition: Review petition allowed; judgment in L.A.A.No.759/2010 reviewed and modified; land value refixed at Rs.2,25,000 per Are; claimants entitled to statutory benefits; no interest on enhanced amount for 1422 days; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

L. Surendran (deceased) represented by legal heirs impleaded as Addl. Petitioners 4 to 9
L. Dileep Kumar
L. Sukadev
Chandrika.S
Sindhu.S
Sri. L. Surendran
Bhuvaneswari.S
Anil.S

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 043
The Special Tahsildar (LA) International Airport, Chakkai, Thiruvananthapuram 695 024

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. ANIL S. RAJ
• SMT. ANILA PETER
• SMT. K.N. RAJANI
• SRI. J. Vivek George
• SRI. RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. A.K. Sukumaran - Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala review petition concerns land acquisition for the construction of the International Passenger Terminal at Chakkai, Thiruvananthapuram. An extent of 2.35 acres in Pettah Village was acquired. The Land Acquisition Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs. 8,00,000 per Are, but the High Court, in L.A.A.No.759/2010 (decided 25.03.2011), refixed the value at Rs. 1,75,000 per Are. The State challenged that judgment in a review petition (RP No.407/2015). The petitioners argued that because the State withdrew its appeal against L.A.R.No.330/2004, the Rs.8,00,000 per Are awarded there should be final for these lands, and the LA A 759/2010 judgment should be reviewed to fix Rs.8,00,000 per Are. They also invoked a Supreme Court order indicating that a dismissal of a Special Leave Petition on delay does not merge a decree, hence review is maintainable. The respondents contended that review is not the proper remedy and that the earlier order’s value could be aligned only through appropriate, permissible channels. The court ultimately allowed the review petition and modified the earlier judgment, refixing compensation at Rs.2,25,000 per Are, while noting that statutory benefits accrue but without interest on the enhanced amount for the delay in filing the review. The order aligns with related precedents and the value observed in similar village cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that because the State withdrew its appeal against L.A.R. No. 330/2004, the compensation fixed in that case at Rs. 8,00,000 per Are became final for these lands. They urge that the judgment in L.A.A.No.759/2010 should be reviewed to refix the land value at Rs. 8,00,000 per Are, arguing that review is the proper remedy and supported by the principle that dismissal of a Special Leave Petition for delay does not merge the decree (citing Bakshi Dev Raj v. Sudheer Kumar). They also rely on findings in related cases (e.g., L.A.A.No.90/2012) to advocate for a higher compensation. They argue against a narrow interpretation of review and for consistent application of enhanced values when comparable precedents exist.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/landowners argue that review is not the proper vehicle to challenge the compensation terms already settled and that the remedy lies in appropriate proceedings, not a belated review. They contend that outcome of L.A.R. 330/2004 cannot be automatically transported as final for all linked proceedings, and that the court should not disturb the 2011 judgment absent a clear legal error. They emphasize adherence to the established valuation in the 2011 order or, where applicable, in comparable cases, but resist retroactive escalations without conformity to due process.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bakshi Dev Raj v. Sudheer Kumar	AIR 2011 SC 3137	Positive	Cited to support that dismissal of a Special Leave Petition on delay does not result in merger of decree; review petition remains maintainable.
L.A.A.No.362/2008	L.A.A.No.362/2008	Positive	Referenced as a precedent for higher valuation (Rs.2,00,000 per Are) influencing the approach to refixing value in the connected matters.
L.A.A.No.90/2012	L.A.A.No.90/2012	Positive	Used to support a higher compensatory value (Rs.2,25,000 per Are) for lands in the same village; informs the relief granted in the review.
L.A.R.No.83/2005	L.A.R.No.83/2005	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as part of the related reference court proceedings, not as a controlling precedent.
L.A.R.No.20/04	L.A.R.No.20/04	Mentioned Only	Referenced among the connected reference cases in the acquisition matters.
L.A.R.No.330/04	L.A.R.No.330/04	Mentioned Only	The State withdrew the appeal against this award; its finality is argued by petitioners.

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 RP.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 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 V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** **RP.No. 407 of 2015 IN LA.App.. 759/2010** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LA.App. 759/2010 of HIGHCOURT DATED 2503-2011** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS** - **1 L.SURENDRAN SON OF SRI.LAMBODARAN, CHACKAVILAKATH VEEDU, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.(DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 4 TO 9** - **2 L.DILEEP KUMAR AGED 52 YEARS SON OF SRI.LAMBODARAN, CHACKAVILAKATH VEEDU, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.** - **3 L.SUKADEV AGED 42 YEARS SON OF SRI.LAMBODARAN, CHACKAVILAKATH VEEDU, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.** - ADDL.4 **CHANDRIKA.S, AGED 60 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SRI.L.SURENDRAN** - 5 **SINDHU. S, AGED 39 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI.L.SURENDRAN BEENA.S, AGED 36 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE** - 6 **SRI.L.SURENDRAN, NOW RESIDING AT NO.47, 4TH CROSS, VANNARPET LAYOUT, VIVEK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 47.** - 7 **BHUVANESWARI.S, AGED 34 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI.L.SURENDRAN** - 8 - 9 - **ANIL.S, AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI.L SURENDRAN RENJITH.S, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI.L.SURENDRAN** R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 **REVIEW PETITIONERS 4, 5 AND 7 TO 9 RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, KOCHUTHOPPU, NEAR DOMESTIC AIRPORT, VALLAKADAVU, TVM 695 008.** **LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER IMPLEADED AS ADDL.PETITIONERS 4 TO 9 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 IN IA 6/2017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.** ## **SRI.A.K.SUKUMARAN-SR.GP FOR R1 AND R2** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2019, THE COURT ON 22.01.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 # **V.CHITAMBARESH &** ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ************************** R.P.No.407 of 2015 in L.A.A.No.759 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2019 ## **O R D E R** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** This petition is filed for reviewing the judgment dated 25.03.2011 passed by this Court in L.A.A.No.759 of 2010. 2. L.A.A.No.759 of 2010 was filed by the State challenging the award passed by the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in L.A.R.No.83 of 2005. The second and the third petitioners in the review petition are the second and the third respondents in L.A.A.No.759 of 2010. The first petitioner is no more. He was the first respondent in L.A.A.No.759 of 2010. His legal representatives have been impleaded in the review petition as additional petitioners 4 to 9. 4 R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 3. An extent of 02.35 Ares of land in Pettah Village was acquired for the purpose of construction of new International Passenger Terminal at Chakkai in Thiruvananthapuram. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.91,867/- per Are. The reference court refixed the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per Are. L.A.A.No.759 of 2010 was filed by the State challenging the award passed by the reference court refixing the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per Are. 4. As per the judgment dated 25.03.2011, this Court allowed L.A.A.No.759 of 2010 and refixed the value of the land at Rs.1,75,000/- per Are. This petition is filed by the claimants for reviewing the aforesaid judgment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records. 6. The reference court had disposed of L.A.R.No.83 of 2005 (from which L.A.A.No.759 of 2010 arose) along with two other cases, L.A.R.Nos.20/04 and 330/04. All the three cases related to acquisition of land for the same purpose under the 5 R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 same notification. In all the three cases, the land is situated in the same village. The reference court had, by a common judgment dated 20.03.2009, disposed of L.A.R.Nos.20/2004, 330/2004 and 83/2005 by refixing the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per Are. 7. The State had filed appeal not only against the award passed in L.A.R.No.83/05 but also against the awards passed by the reference court in the two other cases. 8. L.A.A.No.490/2010 was filed by the State against the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.330/2004. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.01.2014 allowing the State the liberty to file fresh appeal. Admittedly, the State has not filed any fresh appeal. 9. The State had filed the appeal L.A.A.No.90/2012 challenging the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.20/2014. As per the judgment dated 09.10.2014, this Court allowed the aforesaid appeal by refixing the value of the land at Rs.2,25,000/- per Are. 6 R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as the State had withdrawn the appeal filed against the award passed in L.A.R.No.330/2004, the compensation granted to the claimants in that case by the reference court by fixing the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per Are has become final and therefore, the judgment in L.A.A.No.759/2010 is to be reviewed and compensation has to be granted by refixing the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per Are. 11. At this juncture, we may take note of the relevant portion of the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.759 of 2010 which reads as follows: _“Having regard to the submissions addressed and having taken into account the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.362/2008, this appeal will stand allowed to the extent of refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.1,75,000/- per Are.”_ 12. On perusing the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.362/2008, we find that compensation was granted in that case by refixing the value of the land at Rs.2,00,000/- per Are. However, as per the judgment in L.A.A.No.759/2010, this 7 R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 Court had granted compensation by refixing the value of the land only at Rs.1,75,000/- per Are. On this ground, we find that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment in L.A.A.No.759/2010 in not adopting the same value of the land as in L.A.A.No.362/2008. Therefore, the judgment in L.A.A.No.759/2010 is liable to be reviewed. 13. But, the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitled to get compensation for land by refixing the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per Are cannot be accepted. If they have got a claim that they are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per Are, the remedy is not a review petition and the remedy lies elsewhere. 14. At the same time, we take note of the fact that in L.A.A.No.90/2012, which was filed against L.A.R.No.20/2014, this Court had granted compensation by refixing the value of the land at Rs.2,25,000/- per Are. The land involved in that case was acquired for the same purpose under the same notification. The land involved in L.A.A.No.90/2012 and in this case are situated in R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 8 the same village. Therefore, the value of the land in the instant case can also be refixed at Rs.2,25,000/- per Are. 15. Learned Government Pleader has contended that the petitioners had filed special leave petition against the judgment dated 25.03.2001 of this Court in L.A.A.No.759/2010 but it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the review petition is not maintainable. On a perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the special leave petition was dismissed not on merits but on the ground of unexplained delay in filing it. An order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court refusing special leave to appeal does not result in merger of decree or judgment and therefore, subsequent review petition is maintainable (See **Bakshi Dev Raj v. Sudheer Kumar : AIR 2011 SC 3137** ) 16. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 25.03.2011 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 is reviewed and modified and the value of the land acquired is refixed at Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand only) per 9 R.P.No.407/2015 in L.A.A.No.759/2010 Are. The claimants will be entitled to get all other statutory benefits. However, they are not entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay of 1422 days in filing the review petition. No costs. (sd/-) **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/21/01/2019 True Copy PS to Judge