This writ petition (WP(C) No.13580/2021) before the Kerala High Court concerns a challenge to the refusal of registration of a sale deed (Exhibit P2) on the ground that an NOC from the District Collector was required under Section 71(3) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner, M.A. Joy, had been allotted 1.62 acres of property transferred by the Kerala Water Authority for rehabilitation in connection with a pipeline project. Exhibit P1 conferred absolute rights in the property to the petitioner, who then executed Exhibit P2 on 15.01.2021 and presented it for registration on 16.01.2021. The 1st respondent refused registration, citing Section 71(3) and demanding a No-Objection Certificate from the District Collector. The District Collector later passed Exhibit P6 (26.04.2021) holding that no NOC was required, based on the absolute transfer of rights. The petitioner contends that the refusal resulted from the 1st respondent’s misinterpretation, and that the four-month time limit under Section 23 of the Registration Act had not expired, and that the petitioner should not be penalized under Rule 44 for delays caused by administrative action. The court, invoking the maxim Nul prisera avantage de son tort demesne (no one shall take advantage of his own wrong), finds merit in the petitioner’s claim and directs that Exhibit P2 be presented for registration within 10 days, with registration to be effected strictly in accordance with the statute. The judgment underscores that a prior misinterpretation by a registering officer cannot justify penalizing the applicant for delay in presentation when the relevant order (P6) had effectively resolved the NOC question.
This First Appeal from Order (F.A.O. No. 25 of 2020) arises from an execution petition in O.S. No. 237 of 2010, where the decree holder obtained a realisation decree and attached 4.5 cents of land in Vattappara Village. The property was auctioned on 23 January 2019 for Rs. 2,70,100. The appellants, who are judgment debtors in the decree, filed E.A. No. 29 of 2019 under Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale; the Sub Court, Nedumangad, dismissed it on 5 November 2019. The appeal was admitted, stayed, and mediated with no settlement. The core dispute concerns alleged irregularities in the sale of a joint property to realise a decree of Rs. 2,45,212, including whether the entire 4.5 cents could be sold, whether notice under Rule 66(2) and the proclamation were properly given, and whether the sale should be set aside for undervaluation. The High Court reviews the legality of the sale under Order XLIII, Rule 1(j) CPC, considering Rules 64 and 66 of Order XXI CPC. It cites Desh Bandhu Guptha v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh (1994) 1 SCC 131 to emphasize that only a portion needed to satisfy the decree should be sold when the property is large relative to the decree. Finding no procedural irregularity, the court dismisses the appeal, but directs the Execution Court to address stamp paper considerations arising from stay.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No.4802 of 2023) heard in the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, by a single judge, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, on 30 June 2023. The petition, under Section 482 CrPC, seeks quashing of CC No.792 of 2022 pending in the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kakkanad, in which accused Nos.1 to 4 (Sharafudheen, Nizart A., Renimon C.M., and Muhammed Safar T.A.) were charged with offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 294(b) (obscene acts/words), and 323 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 27.09.2022, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained and assaulted the first respondent, causing injuries.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute has been amicably settled, supported by an affidavit, and thus the proceedings should be terminated to allow the parties to move forward in peace. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging no other crimes against the petitioners, expresses reservations about quashing solely on a settlement. The court, applying the law as laid down in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (followed by Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab), held that non‑compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC, when private in character and settled, can be quashed in exceptional circumstances, especially where there is no public interest or serious offenses involved. The court emphasized examining antecedents, conduct, and the nature of the dispute, and noted that offences under Section 307 IPC or the Arms Act are not amenable to quashing. Evaluating the facts—private dispute, amicable settlement, lack of grievous injuries, and no ongoing investigation—the court concluded that quashing would serve ends of justice and peace. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and Annexure‑II and the charges in CC792/2022 were quashed, terminating all further proceedings.
Govind S., a resident of Karunagapally in Kollam district, seeks correction of his date of birth in the CBSE records and in certificates issued by the CBSE. He asserts that his actual date of birth is 19.06.1988, but the records show 19.02.1989. He relies on Ext. P1 (birth certificate) and other documents, including Exts. P4 (Aadhaar), P5 (Voter ID), P6 (driving license) and P7 (PAN card), to substantiate the correct DOB. The petitioner completed his 10th standard in 2004, and states the error was noticed only recently during preparations for a foreign assignment. The petition contends that a student has the right to seek correction or change of particulars in CBSE school records and CBSE certificates, and that corrections or changes to align certificates with public documents should be entertained, per the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021) (SC). Jigya Yadav distinguishes between “corrections” (to harmonize with school records) and “changes” (when public documents differ or for name changes). In the present case, the issue falls under the category of “change” to align with public documents, and the legal presumption relating to public documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be ignored. The Apex Court’s guidance allows reasonable conditions, such as an affidavit with indemnity, payment of administrative fees, public notice and gazette publication, surrender of the original certificate, and a new certificate with a disclaimer. The court notes the delay but accepts the petitioner’s explanation given his age and argues the petition should be entertained. Accordingly, it is ordered that on filing a fresh application for change of date of birth through the third respondent school, the additional fifth respondent shall consider the same in light of the Jigya Yadav judgment and dehors Ext. P9 dated 02.12.2021. Writ petition disposed of as above.
Joju T John, who joined the Kerala State Library Council in 1989 and retired as Administrative Officer on 31 July 2019, faced post‑retirement deductions after the Local Fund Audit flagged irregularities in his fixation of pay following an apparently unauthorized promotion. Before retirement, Ext.P1 shows pension and DCRG were calculated. After retirement, Ext.P3 records Government ratification of his promotion to the posts of Extension Officer and Assistant Development Officer on 18.04.2020, and Ext.P4 resulted in confirmation of his revised pay; Ext.P6 later deducted Rs. 5,61,028 from his DCRG and Ext.P5 re-fixed his salary from 01.07.2006. The petitioner challenged Exts.P5 and P6, seeking quashing of those orders and mandamus to disburse withheld pensionary benefits. He argued that promotion was ratified and that long delays in fixation and hearing violated natural justice, and that the recovery was impermissible under the Supreme Court’s decision in Rafiq Masih and Kerala’s decision in Sreedevi T.R. The State contends that Ext.P5 merely ratified promotion and Ext.P6 corrected the salary, and recovery is legitimate to prevent illegal enrichment. The High Court ultimately held that recovery from a retired employee, after more than thirteen years, was impermissible, allowed the petition, set aside Exts.P5 and P6, and ordered disbursement of gratuity and pension within three months.
WP(C) No. 17406 OF 2022 & Conn. cases These writ petitions challenge the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 2022 framed under Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and allied amendments to the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Petitioners—managers and teachers of aided schools—allege the amendments create inconsistencies with the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, Act 35 of 2009) and with Kerala’s parent statute and rules. Central issues include Rule 15(iii) and the Note to Rule 15(iii) introducing reporting of absentees to the Headmaster for removal from rolls; Rule 15A mandating reporting of absentees for standards I–VIII; amendments to Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII on staff fixation; and the SAMANWAYA portal for appointment approvals. Petitioners argue these changes jeopardize pupil-rights, education hours, and due process, and could be exploited to create fictitious admissions or administrative bottlenecks. Respondents contend the amendments are designed to curb malpractices, ensure compliance with the RTE Act, and prevent drain on public funds, while strengthening accountability (including teacher liability for bogus admissions). The Court, after interim relief, upholds the amendments, finding them within the enabling statutes and not violative of the Constitution, and ultimately dismisses the petitions on merits.
WP(C) Nos. 25121/2022; 25144/2022; 25163/2022; 25174/2022; 25222/2022 The batch of writ petitions filed in the Kerala High Court challenge the denial of eligible gratuity to employees of various service cooperative banks after superannuation. The petitioners contend that the Societys cannot bar gratuity with an upper cap under the Payment of Gratuity Act, especially in light of binding precedents such as Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (Full Bench) which counsel for the petitioners rely upon to claim entitlement beyond the LIC Group Gratuity Scheme. The respondents argue maintainability issues, stating that the petitioners have not approached the respective Societies and that quantum would depend on Bye-laws and Regulations; they also point to the statutory remedy before the Gratuity Controlling Authority under the Act. The judge notes the petitions’ common issue—whether the Society can deny gratuity—and emphasizes that, ultimately, the Society must decide claims on the facts, documentary inputs, and prevailing precedents. The court directs a structured, time-bound approach: petitioners may file claims with the respective banks within two weeks; competent authorities shall hear and pass appropriate orders not later than three months from such applications, while considering the cited precedents. The liberty to pursue alternative remedies under the Payment of Gratuity Act remains open, and the matter is disposed with directions rather than final adjudication of entitlement.
This Regular Second Appeal challenges the judgment dated 23.09.2020 in A.S.50/2014 of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ottappalam, which affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit for injunction and damages and decreed the counterclaim directing the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule shop. The original plaintiff’s legal representatives contend that the plaint schedule building, originally entrusted in 1981 by the defendants’ father, was leased to the plaintiff, establishing a lessor–lessee relationship, with rent progressively enhanced to Rs 2,250 per month. The defendants denied tenancy, placing reliance on Ext. B1, a licence deed dated 15.08.2009 granting permission to occupy for 18 months at Rs 2,250 per month and asserting that the licence, not a lease, was created and that possession remained with the owner. The trial court and the First Appellate Court held Ext. B1 to be a licence, a conclusion the High Court affirms, drawing on authorities such as Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor. The High Court emphasizes that the true test is the nature and quality of occupancy and the parties’ intention, not the label; hence no tenancy exists. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine with costs, and an undertaking to vacate by 01.01.2023 and settlement of arrears was recorded.
The petitioner, Sree Prayangott Shiva Temple, a temple governed under the Malabar Devaswom Board, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus to restrain the Kannapuram Grama Panchayat and its workers from trespass and encroachment on the temple land described in Ext.P1 Adangal (Re.Sy.No.73/4, Kannapuram Village). The temple alleges that the Panchayat intends to widen and tar an existing road across temple property by erecting granite side walls, thereby changing the lie and nature of the property and potentially obstructing the elephant procession during the temple festival of Annapoorneswari Devi. It seeks protection for its property and directives to the District Collector under Section 94A of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and to implement the directives in Exts.P5 and P6. The petition cites concerns about enforcement of temple rights and seeks preventive measures to safeguard temple assets. The 11th respondent denies encroachment, stating there is no intention to form a new road or widen the temple boundary; the project 69/2023 involves maintenance/improvement of an existing road with minimal height differences, with granite stones only to mark the road boundaries. The court disposes the petition with a declaration that the Panchayat cannot encroach on temple land while permitting road maintenance, and that boundary disputes be resolved by the appropriate statutory authority; the judgment reinforces temple protection and parens patriae duties.
Crl.Appeal.No.2962 of 2008 On 11.01.2005, the appellant Farook was found in possession of 1.055 kg of ganja near the Palakkad Town Railway Station, allegedly for sale, and was tried under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with a default sentence. The Kerala High Court in this criminal appeal, heard by a Single Judge, examines a series of procedural and evidentiary gaps raised by the defence. The defence contends that the arrest memo (Ext. P1) bore the crime number for the case before the FIR (Ext. P3) was registered, which Rafeeque v. Sub Inspector of Police (2020s) extended to raise serious doubt about the recovery of contraband when not explained. The non-compliance of Section 57 NDPS Act is argued since no proper within-48-hours report to the immediate superior is produced; Ext. P17 is an unreliable document. The final report was filed by the Circle Inspector of Palakkad South Police Station, though the offence fell within Palakkad Town North's jurisdiction, rendering the report incompetent. No specimen seal impression was affixed on Ext. P2 or forwarding notes marked, casting doubt on the chain-of-custody. The court also notes the requirement of lab correlation under Vijay Pandey and related cases. The High Court ultimately allows the appeal, sets aside the conviction and sentence, and acquits the accused; bail was cancelled, and any deposited amount would be refunded.
Dr. Justine Stanley, a medical practitioner, seeks permanent registration in Kerala without the Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI). He completed a Master Physician degree from Plovdiv Medical University, Bulgaria, in 2008, and claims his qualification is equivalent to MBBS in India. He cleared the National Board of Examinations’ screening test in 2016 and was registered with the Delhi Medical Council in 2018. On migrating to Kerala to practice, he was informed by the Kerala State Medical Council that, besides such registration, he must undergo CRRI in India, which is impracticable given his prior international internship and registration. The petitioner relies on Sadhiya Siyad v. State of Kerala (2021) and Sreeraj S.B. v. Kerala State Medical Council (2022) to contend that the National Medical Commission’s directives govern foreign medical graduates and that pre-18 November 2021 qualifications recognised by their country of origin should be eligible for permanent registration, without CRRI, provided proper documentation demonstrates recognition. The respondent council counters that foreign qualifications must be recognisable for enrollment in the country of qualification and supported by proof from Indian authorities; lacking such proof, permanent registration cannot be granted. The High Court ultimately directed the second respondent to permit the petitioner to apply and process registration without CRRI if the Bulgarian qualification is recognised for practice in Bulgaria, as evidenced by Exts. P9 and P10.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1087 OF 2023 Sreehari, the second accused in Crime No.1957 of 2022 at Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. On the night of 29 December 2022, the accused and the first offender allegedly restrained the defacto complainant with common intention arising from prior animosity, and the second accused beat and pushed him while the first accused struck the head and face with a freewheel, causing serious injuries to two persons who survived. The offences charged include sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341 and 307 read with 34 IPC. The defense contends that the overt act attributed to the petitioner involved only a hand attack and his role is comparatively lesser than that of the first accused; the investigation has progressed and he has no criminal antecedents; he has already undergone custody for about 22 days and should be released on bail subject to standard conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters that the incident stemmed from a petrol pump dispute; the second accused allegedly initiated the overt acts in concert with the first accused; hence his complicity is on par with the other accused. After examining the case diary and the progress of investigation, the court finds that the facts justify granting bail with conditions. The petition is allowed on strict conditions: bond Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, no witness intimidation, cooperation with investigation, appearance as directed, and prohibition from committing any offence during bail.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 205 OF 2020 Shibu Daniel, the second accused in CC 479/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla, challenges the order dismissing his discharge under Section 239 CrPC. Four accused were charged with offences including cheating, under sections 419, 468, 471, 473 and 423 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that, in furtherance of a common intention, forged documents were created to misappropriate money due under certificates issued by the United Trust of India to Sri Gopalakrishnan Nair; the first accused allegedly forged and fabricated a false address, while the second accused, a postman, delivered a composite service form and thereby facilitated the scheme. The Magistrate rejected the discharge petition on the ground that prima facie material existed and denial of discharge would be denial of justice. The petitioner contends that the only overt act shown is the petitioner’s role as a postman delivering postal articles addressed to the victim, and that even if CW15 and CW16’s statements are accepted, they do not prove his complicity in forging or receipt of money. The High Court reviews the discharge framework, citing Vishnu Kumar Shukla and other authorities, and emphasizes that the judge may sift evidence only to determine a prima facie case, and that grave suspicion must be shown before framing a charge; a mere presumption is insufficient for discharge denial. The court ultimately allows the revision and discharges the 2nd accused, setting aside the Magistrate’s order.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenges Annexure A1, a preliminary order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Sections 107 and 111 Cr.P.C., in MC No.259/2022, relating to a solitary crime against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that Annexure A1 does not disclose the substance of the information received or the basis on which the Magistrate was satisfied to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., thereby failing the due process requirement and potentially stigmatizing the petitioner. The judgment traces the statutory framework: Section 107 empowers preventive action upon information that a person is likely to breach the peace, while Section 111 mandates a written order setting forth the substance of the information, the bond terms, duration, and the particulars of any sureties, so that the person can respond. Citing the doctrine from several Kerala High Court precedents, including Girish P., Bejoy K.V., Santhosh M.V., and Ahammad Kabeer, the Court emphasizes that the information must be disclosed and the action must be justified, not based merely on prior conduct or the mere registration of a crime. The court also references Moidu’s Full Bench to underscore the necessity of imminent breach of peace for initiating proceedings under 107 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, Annexure A1 is found not to comply with the statutory requirements, and the petition is allowed, with quashing of Annexure A1 and all linked proceedings.
WP(C) NO. 10612 OF 2024 & con.cases This is a consolidated judgment of the Kerala High Court dealing with a batch of writ petitions (WP(C) 10612/2024 and connected cases) challenging freezing of bank accounts by various banks under police/intelligence notices in cybercrime matters. The Court, after admission and hearing, issued interim and, ultimately, final directions to regulate freezes. The core issue is balancing the need to preserve proceeds of crime with the petitioners’ rights to access funds. The Court cites the doctrine established in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2023 KHC OnLine 661) to limit freezes to amounts specified in police requisitions and to require Banks to inform police if further freezing is contemplated. The judgment disposes of the petitions with directions to confine freezes to the disputed sums and to allow petitioners to operate accounts beyond the freeze limit, subject to police information. The ruling provides a broad, court-wide framework applicable to all connected petitions and references earlier decisions and orders (e.g., WP(C) 28155/2023) as background, while focusing on proportional, rights-respecting remedies in cybercrime financial disputes.
Tahira, the appellant, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained as a pillion rider in a road accident on 16 September 2005 on the Aluva-Perumbavoor road. A tempo van driven by the third respondent allegedly struck the motorcycle, injuring Tahira and causing the death of her husband and injuries to her two children. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, consolidated four petitions arising from the same accident and awarded Tahira Rs 73,890 against the insurer, but with a finding of composite negligence by 25% against her, reducing her payable amount to Rs 55,418 with interest and costs. The appellant challenged the quantum and the composite negligence finding, arguing Ext A3 final police report attributed negligence to the tempo van driver, and that the notional income, disability assessment, and other heads should be recalibrated. The High Court relied on the principle from Sajad Saheer v. Rajeev that composite negligence on a pillion rider is unsustainable, and set aside that component. It re-fixated the appellant’s income at Rs 3,500 per month, maintained a 7% functional disability, applied the Sarla Verma multiplier of 17, and recalculated losses, bystander expenses, and damages. The result was an enhanced total compensation and a direction to deposit the amount before the Tribunal, with disbursement to Tahira along lawful channels.
Xavier Kennedy @ Joy, the first accused, stands convicted under sections 120B, 489B, and 489C read with section 34 IPC for allegedly conspiring with the second accused to traffic counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100 denomination. The prosecution case runs that the second accused procured counterfeit notes and exchanged them with the appellant, who used the tainted notes in transactions. On 23.3.2001, the appellant was found in possession of 62 counterfeit notes by a police team near his meat shop at Puthoor junction, Kottarakkara; the second accused was later found in possession of 10 counterfeit notes at Rohini Hotel and Restaurant in Kottarakkara. An inspection and mahazar were prepared; the notes were seized and material objects recovered. The investigation transitioned to CBCID in April 2001, with the trial held in S.C. No.1651/2003 before the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. PW1–PW11 testified; Exhibits P1–P17 were marked. The defence argued discrepancies about arrest location, delays in production, and issues with statements of witnesses, plus lack of ownership proof of the meat shop. The trial court convicted the appellant; on appeal, the Kerala High Court examined the record, noting that independent witnesses turned hostile but official witnesses remained consistent. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents, the court held that such hostility does not automatically nullify the prosecution case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences.
The petitioners, Vijayamma, Bind u, and Baiju, challenge Ext.P3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, which rejected their application to record them as the legal representatives of the 2nd claimant (the deceased Sankaran) and to release deposited amounts. The background trace to OP(MV) No.810/2003 arises from the death of Binu, with Sankaran as the 2nd claimant; Sankaran died in 2007, and his legal heirs were already on record, but no formal Order XXII Rule 2 CPC application was preferred during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal had earlier awarded compensation and, in 2021, a common judgment enhanced it; the petitioners then sought to record themselves as legal representatives and to release deposits via I.A.3662/2022 and I.A.3663/2022. Ext.P3 purportedly refused these requests. The petition relies on Soumya S v. Shan P.G (2021) (5 KLT Online 1183), where the Division Bench held that no abatement occurs even without a formal Order XXII Rule 2 application if the heirs are already in the party array. The respondent insurer contends the Tribunal’s order is legitimate and the amount is deposited. The High Court, citing Soumya and Parameswaran Padmanabhan Nambi v. Ramakrishna Iyer Raghava Iyer (1952 KLT 103), holds that failure to record an entry does not nullify a decree. Ext.P3 is quashed; the I.A.s will be reconsidered after allowing the petitioners to establish their status as legal heirs, with orders to be passed within a month. The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
The Kerala High Court, in Crl.M.C. 1178 of 2022, exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in Sessions Case No. 920/2017 (LP 71/2020) before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The petitioner, Suneer, the fifth accused, contends that after co-accused were acquitted, continuing the prosecution against him would amount to abuse of process and would undermine the substratum of the case. The Public Prosecutor opposes. The court agrees, citing established decisions (Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police; Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala; Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala) that where the acquittal of co-accused undermines the evidentiary foundation, the string of the prosecution may be terminated to avoid the abuse of process and judicial time. After examining the annexures, including Annexure-7’s acquittal of co-accused and the testimony (many witnesses turned hostile, some settlements out of court), the court determines that there is no reliable evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offences. Consequently, the court holds that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the proceedings in LP 71/2020 and related Areekode PS Case No. 536/2014 are quashed, yielding relief to the petitioner.
CRP Nos. 102 of 2021 and 268 of 2021 The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated challenge to an electricity compensation award, sets aside an Order by the Additional District Judge-I, Pathanamthitta, and remands the matter for fresh consideration. The revision petitions arise from awards under OP(ELE) 41/2018, concerning damages for trees, crops, and land diminution caused by the drawing of 400 kV lines across land owned by K.K. John and the adjacent respondent Power Grid Corporation. The court below awarded ₹53.52 million for trees and diminution, but the landowner argues this undervalues rubber trees, pepper vines, and the overall impact on land value; it questions the assumed prices and yields used (e.g., rubber priced at Rs.50/kg vs. Ext.A18 showing Rs.115–217/kg and Rs.106.50/kg per the Department data; pepper priced at Rs.200/kg vs. Rs.415–420/kg in Ext.A18; pepper and rubber yields claimed much higher than the court’s fixed figures). The Corporation contends the compensation is not excessive and disputes the basis for land-value calculations and the 50% diminution, arguing that some land remains in use. The court observes that key documents and evidence were not properly considered and remands the matter for fresh assessment, with consideration of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and its IV Schedule. It also notes reliance on a Division Bench decision (KSEB v. Maranchi Matha) for calculating interest from the date of cutting trees. The court directs disposal within four months and permits objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report if not already filed.
