Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed; cross-objections allowed to ...

State of Kerala & The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Mary John and Others (LAA Nos. 73/2017, 217/2017, CO 48/2018, 51/2018)

Case / Petition Number:LA.APP. NO. 73 OF 2017; LA.APP. NO. 217 OF 2017; CO NO. 48 OF 2018; LA.APP. NO. 51 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhamed Mustaque
  • Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date
2024-06-14
Court Decision / Holding
In result, LAA Nos. 73/2017, 217/2017, 51/2018 are dismissed. CO No. 48/2018 in LAA 217/2017 is allowed to the extent that injurious affection for 3.14 Ares is enhanced to 50% of the market value of the acquired land, with proportionate costs. Injurious affection is treated as part of excess compensation, and the cross-objections are allowed accordingly.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed; cross-objections allowed to the extent stated (injurious affection enhanced to 50% of market value for remaining land); LAA 73/2017, 217/2017, 51/2018 dismissed; CO 48/2018 allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • State of Kerala
  • The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads Division), Kothamangalam

Respondents

  • Mary John
  • M.J.Baby
  • M.J.Salomy
  • Alice John
  • Soly John
  • M.I.Abu
  • Safiya
  • P.P.Kuriachan
  • Saramma Kuriachan
  • Smitha P.Jobin
  • Sneha P.Kuriyan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.T.K.Sha jahan( Sr. Government Pleader)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.P. Thomas Geevargheese
  • • Sri.Tony Thomas Inchiparambil
  • • Sri.Shindo Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated judgment of a land acquisition appeal and connected cross-objections arising from the acquisition of land in Kothamangalam for the Thankalam-Kozhippilly New Bye Pass Road crossing NH-49 under the Land Acquisition Act, with support from the Kerala Wetland regime. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the land (Sy. Nos. 1021/6-A-3pt, 1021/6A-3pt, 1022/2-3) into wetland categories, while the reference court enhanced compensation for categories IV and V, leading to State appeals challenging the equivalence of category VIII (wetland) with dry land. The court notes coconut trees indicate land conversion and that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force on 12.08.2008; it held there was no rigid bar to treating such land similarly for compensation where conversion occurred and the wetland designation predates/overlaps with post-2008 policy. The judgment allows injurious affection as part of excess compensation, relying on Kader v. State of Kerala (2005) to grant enhanced injurious affection at 50% of the market value for the remaining land, and dismisses the State’s appeals while allowing cross-objections to the stated extent. The order also provides for costs and proportional relief. The final disposition resolves the competing valuations and redefines the extent of compensation payable to the claimants.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) notification (issued 18.07.2006)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (effective 12.08.2008)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Injurious affection forms part of excess compensation and carries interest (Kader v. State of Kerala, 2005(1) KLT 598)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that category VIII land (wetland) cannot be equated with dry land categories IV and V for purposes of compensation. It emphasizes that the 2008 Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act came into force only in 2008, and wetland classification prior to that was not rigorously applied. It argues the commission report shows conversion (coconut trees) and that wetland status should influence compensation rather than equate to dry land values, hence the reference court’s enhancement to IV/V was improper and should be distinguished. The State maintains the land’s wetland character and post-Act policy justify a differentiated valuation and injurious affection should reflect its true utility and land use at the time of acquisition.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants contend that the land has been converted and the commission report confirms utility for cultivation (coconut trees). They argue the reference court rightly enhanced compensation and that injurious affection should be increased, as per Kader, to compensate for the remaining land. They rely on the detailed sketch Ext.A2 and Ext.A2(a) showing the residual land’s limited use and support a 50% enhancement of injurious affection, with consequent costs. They press that the wetland designation does not bar higher compensation where the land’s true value and use post-conversion warrant it.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kader v. State of Kerala2005(1) KLT 598PositiveCited to support the proposition that injurious affection is part of the excess compensation and carries interest, justifying the cross- objection award.

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 State of Kerala & The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Mary John and Others (LAA Nos. 73/2017, 217/2017, CO 48/2018, 51/2018) 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE`** ``` & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 14 [ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1946 LA.APP. NO. 73 OF 2017 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2016 IN LAR NO.33 OF 2012 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR: ``` - **`1 STATE OF KERALA`** ## **`2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,`** ``` PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROAD DIVISION),KOTHAMANGALAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN LAR:`** - **`1 MARY JOHN,`** - **`D/O.JOHN, MALAYIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA, PIN-686691.`** - **`2 M.J.BABY,`** - **`D/O.JOHN, MALAYIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA, PIN-686691.`** - **`3 M.J.SALOMY,`** - **`D/O.JOHN, MALAYIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA, PIN-686691.`** - **`4 ALICE JOHN, D/O.JOHN, MALAYIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA, PIN-686691.`** - **`5 SOLY JOHN,`** - **`D/O.JOHN, MALAYIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA, PIN-686691.`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVARGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS INCHIPARAMBIL ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2024, ALONG WITH LAA 217 OF 2017, CO.48/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 14 [ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` LA.APP. NO. 217 OF 2017 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2016 IN LAR NO.34 OF 2012 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ``` APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR: ``` ## **`1 STATE OF KERALA`** - **`REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.`** ## **`2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,`** ``` PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROADS DIVISION), KOTHAMANGALAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN LAR:`** ## **`1 M.I.ABU,`** ``` S/O IBRAHIM, MEYKAPADICKAL, MULAVOOR VILLAGE-686673. ``` - **`2 SAFIYA,`** - **`W/O ABU, MEYKAPADICKAL, MULAVOOR VILLAGE-686673.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE FOR R1 AND R2 ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..73/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 3 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 14 [ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` CO NO. 48 OF 2018 ``` ``` IN LAA NO.217 OF 2017 ``` ``` LAR NO.34 OF 2012 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ## **`CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2/CLAIMANTS:`** - **`1 M.I.ABU, S/O.IBRAHIM, MEYKAPADIKKAL (H), MULAVOOR VILLAGE-686 673, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.`** - **`2 SAFIYA,`** ``` W/O ABU, MEYKAPADIKKAL(H), MULAVOOR VILLAGE-686673, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 030.`** - **`2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,`** - **`PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION), KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..73/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 4 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 14 [ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1946 LA.APP. NO. 51 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2017 IN LAR NO.11 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN LAR:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN LAR:`** - **`1 P.P.KURIACHAN,`** - **`S/O.PURAVATH, PALLIMALIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA-686 691.`** - **`2 SARAMMA KURIACHAN,`** ``` PALLIMALIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA-686 691. ``` - **`3 SMITHA P.JOBIN,`** ``` PALLIMALIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA-686 691. ``` - **`4 SNEHA P.KURIAN, PALLIMALIL HOUSE, KUROOR KARA-686 691.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVARGHESE ``` ``` THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2024, ALONG WITH LA.App..73/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 5 ## **`J U D G M E N T`** ## `A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.` ``` The State has come up in appeals challenging the award passed by the reference court in LAR Nos.33 of 2012, ``` ``` 34 of 2012 & 11 of 2014 on the file of Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha. In one of the appeals, i.e., LAA No.217 of 2017, cross objection No.48 of 2018 was also filed by claimants. An extent of 4.86 Ares of land in Sy.No.1021/6-A-3pt, 3.99 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.1021/6A-3pt and 02.54 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.1022/2-3 in Kothamangalam Village of Kothamangalam Taluk, were acquired for the construction of Thankalam-Kozhippilly New Bye Pass Road crossing NH-49. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 18.07.2006. Land acquisition Officer categorised the land under category VIII and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.74,000/- per Are. This land has been classified as a wetland in revenue records. In respect of category V, the Land Acquisition ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 6 ``` Officer awarded Rs.1,02,300/- per Are. In respect of category IV, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,11,200/-. Category IV and V are dry land. The reference court enhanced the land value for category VIII to Rs.2,47,100/- as similar to category IV and V. The State preferred these appeals challenging enhancement. ``` ``` 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the land in category VIII being a wetland, it cannot be equated with a land in category IV and V. ``` ``` 3. The commission report shows that there were coconut trees in that land. Therefore, it is clear that it is a converted land. Merely for the reason that in the revenue record, the land was shown as wetland, it cannot be differentiated with dry land, for the purpose of awarding compensation. It is to be noted that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force only with effect from 12.08.2008. There was no rigor in utilising the land as a classified wetland prior to 12.08.2008. Therefore, the reference court was rightly justified in ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 7 ``` equating this land in the same category of IV and V. We have dismissed the State’s appeal preferred against enhancement of the market value in respect of category IV and V. In the light of above, we dismiss the State’s appeals. ``` ``` 4. However, in cross objection filed by the claimants, they have a case that they were only awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for injurious affection of remaining land. We had gone through the commission report and sketch. The commission report clearly states that balance land remaining useless and it cannot be put to any use. We also looked at the shape of the land in Ext.A2 sketch. We are sure that the same cannot be put to any use. As per Ext.A2(a) Area Register this would come to 3.14 Ares. In the light of the above, we are of the view that for injurious affection to that 3.14 Ares of land, compensation can be enhanced to 50% of the market value of the land fixed for the acquired land i.e., Rs.2,47,100/- per Are. ``` `5. A Single Judge of this Court in` **`Kader v. State of`** **`Kerala [2005(1) KLT 598]`** `, held that the amount awarded by` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 8 ``` way of injurious affection is also part of excess compensation. Therefore, it will carry interest. Hence the above compensation under the head of injurious affection will carry statutory interest. Thus the cross objection is allowed to the extent as above. The cross objectors also will be entitled for proportionate costs. ``` ``` In the result, LAA Nos.73 of 2017, 217 of 2017, 51 of 2018 are dismissed and CO No.48 of 2018 in LAA No.217 of 2017 is allowed to the extent as above. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE`** ``` Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ``` ``` DSV/- ``` LAA Nos.73/2017, 217/2017, CO No.48/2018 in LAA No.217/2017 & LAA NO.51/2018 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CO 48/2018`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES :`** ``` Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 7757/2006 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SRO DATED 18.12.2006. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2019 IN CONNECTED LAR 36/2012 OF SUB COURT MUVATTUPUZHA IN THE SAME NOTIFICATION. Annexure A3 TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 1021/6A OF KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE DATED 27.07.2022. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL`**