WP(C) Nos. 12329/2022 & 10429/2022: D. Saratchandran vs State of Kerala and others; Vincent G. vs State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 12329 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** D.SARATCHANDRAN AGED 76 YEARS S/O. DEVARAJAN, HOUSE NO. 85A, S N NAGAR, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024 BY ADVS. S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI BOBY K.JOSEPH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL (L.A ) UNIT, B- BLOCK, 6TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043. 4 ADDL. R4. THE CONTROLLER,LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEMS CENTRE, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695547 ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2023 IN I.A. 1/2023. BY ADV K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT C S SHEEJA (SR GP), SRI. S MANU (DSGI) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).10429/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10429 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 VINCENT G. AGED 70 YEARS S/O. GANGADHARAN NADAR, V.S.BHAVAN, NALLIKUZHY, PARUTHIKUZHY P.O., KARIPPOOR , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541 2 JOHNSON K.GEORGE, AGED 60 YEARS NALLIKUZHY,ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,NALLIKUZHY, PARUTHIKUZHY P.O., KARIPPOOR , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541 3 V.S.PUSHPARAJ AGED 44 YEARS S/O. VINCENT G, GRACE VILLA, EDACHIRA, PUTHUKULANGRA P.O., UZHAMALACKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541 4 K.GOPALAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, SHIJU BHAVAN , NALLIKUZHY ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NALLIKUZHY, PARUTHIKUZHY P.O., KARIPPOOR , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541 5 RAJANI.T., AGED 37 YEARS W/O. JAYARAJ.J., KAKKODEKIZHAKUMKARA VEEDU, IRINCHAYAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 561 BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 3 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 - 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 043 - 3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL (L.A) UNIT, B-BLOCK, 6TH FLOOR,CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043 - 4 SAJEEV KUMAR M. S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, ANJANAM, MALLAMBRAKONAM, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, KARIPUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 5 HARIKUMAR D S/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, GOKUL BHAVAN, MALLAMBRAKONAM, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 6 BABU D. S/O.DAMODHARAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, 17/108, GOKULAM, CHEERAMCOD, EDAMALA, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 7 MADHU G. S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 60 YEARS, M.S.HOUSE, MALLAMBRAKONAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., ANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 8 BINDU S. W/O.MADHU, AGED 51 YEARS, M.S.HOUSE, MALLMBRAKONAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 9 SUDARSANAN T. S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 66 YEARS, SANDHYA NIVAS, MALLAMBRAKONAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, ANAD, CHULLIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 4 - 10 LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEMS CENTRE ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 547 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONTROLLER. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) - 11 SHAILAJA S. W/O.SUDHARSANAN.T, AGED 58 YEARS, 464/ SANDHYA NIVAS, MALLAMBRAKONAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 12 SALITHA S.L. W/O.A.GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, ABHITHA BHAVAN, KANJIRAMPARA, PARUTHIKUZHI P.O., UZHAMALACKAL, PARUTHIKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6 -95 541 - 13 ANEESH S C/O.RAJESWARI.G, 15/518 (1), SARITHA NIVAS, MALLAMPRAKONAM, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 . - 14 RAVEENDERAN K. S/O.KRISHNAN.K, AGED 71 YEARS, 15/530, BIJU BHAVAN, MALLAMBRAKKONAM, KARIPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 15 MALINI.V.V. W/O.R.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, VARAPRASADAM, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 16 THARA L.S. W/O.SURESH K.P., AGED 42 YEARS, AHARON, GRUHAM, MANNOORKONAM P.O., ANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 . - 17 VIDHYA P.S. W/O.AJITH KUMAR.K.P., AJITH BHAVAN, CHIRATHALAKKAL, KARAKULAM P.O., KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 564. - 18 SHIJO B.S. S/O.SHAJI, AGED 18 YEARS, 117, NJAVARAPPAARA VEEDU, KARIPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541. W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 5 - 19 SHAJI J. S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, 117, NJAVARAPPARA VEEDU, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 20 VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR P. S/O.PEETHAMBARAN NAIR.K., AGED 48 YEARS, AMRITHA BHAVAN, CHEERAMCODE, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 21 VASANTHAKUMARI W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS, 88, KANJIRAMKODU VEEDU, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 22 T.J.VIJAYAKUMAR C/O.G.JAMES, AGED 56 YEARS, ATHUL NIVAS, CHEERAMCODE, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 23 SHIBU J.,S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, DEEPA BHAVAN, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 24 KRISHNAN NAIR K.,S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS, SREE BHAVAN, KANJIRAMCODE, NEDUMANGAD, KARIPUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541. - 25 SHEEBA M.,W/O.MARKOSE, AGED 59 YEARS, THALAKKAL VEEDU, CHEERAMCODE, KARIPPOOR MURI, KARIPPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 26 ANILKUMAR - S/O.G.JAMES, AGED 49 YEARS, ANTO VILLA, UZHAYILKONAM, KAVUMMOOLA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 27 CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR P. S/O.PACHAN PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, CHEERAMCODE PUTHEN VEEDU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 - 28 K.VINOD S/O.V.V.KARUNAKARAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, - MALLAMBRAKONAM, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 6 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 29 BEENA S.L.,W/O.SAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, ANJANAM, MALLAMBRAKONAM, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 30 THANKAPPAN A.,APPILOSE, AGED 80 YEARS, NJAVARAPPARA, MUKAL VEEDU, KARIPPOOR MURIYIL, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADDITIONAL R4 TO R29 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2022 IN I.A NO.1/2022 IN WPC 10429/2022 BY ADVS.K.SIJU N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI SMT C S SHEEJA (SR GP), SRI. S MANU (DSGI) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).12329/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 7 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.12329/2022, 10429/2022]** The petitioners in these cases have approached this Court being aggrieved by the 'wrong classification' of their lands for the purpose of determining compensation payable to them under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 is the classification challenged in both writ petitions. In Ext.P3, lands have been categorized as Category 'A' to Category 'E'. Lands in Category 'A' receive the highest compensation while those in lower category receive less. It is their case that lands which are far less valuable than the lands of the petitioners have been categorized in a higher category, [thereby entitling such land owners for higher compensation] while the lands of persons like the petitioners have been classified in a lower category for the purposes of award of compensation. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would submit that the classification of the lands belonging to the petitioners for the purposes of determining the compensation W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 8 payable to them is arbitrary. It is submitted that on account of the 'wrong classification', the petitioners are being found entitled only to a lesser amount of compensation than what they are actually entitled to. It is submitted that the classification was at the instance of the District Collector and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) is passing awards, having regard to the aforesaid classification. 3. The learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Authority would submit that the categorization of lands is only for the purposes of enabling the determination of compensation on a uniform basis and such classification is not a statutory exercise of power. It is submitted that the provisions of the 2013 Act do not contemplate any such classification and the same is only an internal yardstick adopted by the competent authorities for fixing the compensation in a uniform manner. It is submitted that the lands which are found to be more valuable are categorized in the higher category, while lands, which are found to be less valuable on account of various factors which are normally taken into account for the determination of compensation, [under Section 26 of the 2013 Act] are placed in the lower category. It is submitted that ultimately, the claim of the petitioners is for the payment of higher compensation and if they are aggrieved, in any W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 9 manner, by any compensation fixed in respect of their land, they have to resort to statutory remedies as provided in the 2013 Act for claiming higher compensation. In other words, it is submitted that by challenging the categorization, the petitioners cannot seek to establish that they are entitled to a higher compensation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, in reply, submitted that, if the categorization of lands is not a statutory exercise, the same is arbitrary and the land acquisition authority had to fix the land value with reference to the parameters under Section 26 of the 2013 Act for determining compensation in respect of land being acquired for a public purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 relies on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others**_ v. _**State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 162**_ , where, according to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that classification of land owners into two categories for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to them was arbitrary and unsustainable. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 10 learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Requisitioning Authority, I am of the opinion that the challenge to the classification for the purposes of determining compensation payable to the petitioners in these cases cannot be challenged in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Authority that the categorization is merely an internal exercise for the purposes of determining uniformly the rate of compensation to be applied to various classes of land owners on the basis of the value of the land which has to be determined at the first instance by the authorities concerned. The fact that the authorities had prepared a list showing different categorization is no reason to hold that the determination of value will be arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court in _**Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra)**_ was dealing with the case where the land owners were classified into two classes and not with a case where the land was categorized into different classes for the purpose of fixing the compensation. In that case, the date of ownership was taken into account to fix different benefits based on the assumption that only one class depended on W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 11 the land for livelihood while the other did not. In other words, the classification was on the basis of date of ownership resulting in different value of compensation being fixed for similar land. This is clear from a reading of the following paragraphs of the judgment in _**Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra):-**_ “ _**37.** In the case at hand, it has been held by the Full Bench of the High Court that the classification between Pushtaini and Gairpushtaini Landowners is based on one class of land owners being sons of the soil, while the other class being mere landowners, who are not directly attached to the land. Further, the object of this classification, as stated by the full bench of the High Court, is to rehabilitate the original residents, i.e. the sons of the soil, who are likely to become landless due to the acquisition of their land._ _**38.** While prima facie, the classification and the object sought to be achieved through the said classification seems reasonable, however, the devil lies in the details. The justification given bythe GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High Court assumes that only Pushtaini land owners permanently reside in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority._ _**39.** While the classification made by Greater Noida has been based on the object of giving fair compensation, however, such a laudable object of the classification would stand breached bythe effects of such a classification, creating a dissonance between the object and its effect. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of residence or their main source of income is also the subject land, would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders is not extended to them._ ## _**xxx xxx xxx xxx**_ _**58.** In the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust (Supra) this Hon’ble Court was tasked to deal with the question of whether certain provisions the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 were in violation of Article 14. Here, the impugned provisions of the said Act allowed the acquisition of lands at rates lower than the_ W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 12 _rates as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act. What is relevant to our case, is that the Court, while deciding this matter, held that the authority, while acquiring land, cannot distinguish between types of owners, as the object of achieving land for public purposes is met with, irrespective of the type of owner whose land is being acquired. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment reads as under:-_ _“It is now well-settled that the State can make a reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It is equally well-settled that the classification in order to be reasonable must satisfy two tests: (i) the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in question._ _In this connection it must be borne in mind that the object itself should be lawful. The object itself cannot be discriminatory, for otherwise, for instance, if the object is to discriminate against one section of the minority the discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that there is a reasonable classification because it has rational relation to the object sought to be achieved._ _What can be reasonable classification for the purpose of determining compensation if the object of the legislation is to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes?_ _It would not be disputed that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated for lands acquired on the basis that the owner is old or young, healthy or ill, tall or short, or whether the owner has inherited the property or built it with his own efforts, or whether the owner is politician or an advocate. Why is this sort of classification not sustainable? Because the object being to compulsorily acquire for a public purpose, the object is equally achieved whether the land belongs to one type of owner or another type.”_ _**59.** In our opinion, a bare reading of the above mentioned judgment makes it amply clear that the classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the purposes of awarding differential compensation is bad in law, and it is precisely this kind of classification that has been barred. When the purpose of the acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the public at large, then the nature of the owner of the said land is inconsequential to the purpose. If such a classification on the basis of the nature of owner is allowed, then on the same grounds, there might be a possibility of future classifications where power holding members_ W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 13 _of the society may get away with a larger compensation, and the marginalized may get lesser compensation. This is precisely what this Court in the abovementioned judgment predicted, and to preempt such arbitrary classification, clarified the position in law._ _**60.** The Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners. The classification made between Pushtaini land owners and Gair-pushtaini landowners, on the basis of the reasoning mentioned above, is violative of the law laid down in the Nagpur Trust case (Supra) and Article 14 of the Constitution”_ 6. The classification in the present writ petition is for the purposes of guiding the authority as to what is the compensation to be fixed for categories of land depending on their value. The classification which was frowned upon by the Supreme Court is of the nature explained above and the same cannot, therefore, be authority for the proposition that there cannot be any classification for the purposes of determination of the value of land for fixing the compensation payable under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The challenge to the proceedings on the basis of classification/categorization for the purpose of determining compensation is rejected. It is directed that the 3[rd] respondent (in both cases) shall determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in these cases, after considering the usual parameters and after taking into account the compensation already fixed in respect of similar land as part of the same notification. The 3[rd] respondent shall pass awards in respect of the lands which are subject matter of these 14 W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case writ petitions, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorised representative/representatives as also the Requisitioning Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, on awards being passed, it is for the petitioners to challenge the awards in accordance with the procedure contemplated by the 2013 Act and they shall surrender the lands which are subject matter of the acquisition forthwith on the amount fixed as compensation being paid to them by the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioners shall mark appearance before the 3[rd] respondent at 11 A.M.on 3.3.2023 and thereafter the matter shall be disposed of by the 3[rd] respondent in the manner indicated above. Sd/- **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 15 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10429/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 15.02.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.02.2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 07.07.2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.02.2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 14.07.2021 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.02.2022 - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 14.02.2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.02.2022 - Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 01.02.2022 - Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.02.2022 - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICE DATED - 10.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2021 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 16 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS SECTION Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2022 W.P.(C)No.12329/2022 & conn.case 17 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12329/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD 27-1-2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD 18-022022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2212-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 3-32022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10-032022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-3-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT