JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. Every acquisition of land invariably fosters apprehension in the minds of its owners that they would be left high and dry, without being offered the eligible statutory compensation. 2. The petitioner in this case also fears so and thus calls into question before me the action of the competent Authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fair Compensation Act’ for brevity); thus pleading that this Court affirmatively declare the operational purlieus of Section 26 thereof. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Exts.P11 notice issued to her, calling for her claims to compensation, under the provisions of Section 21 of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ relating to a property which has been acquired from her, for the purpose of Kochi Metro Rail Ltd (KMRL for short). 4. Sri. T.R.S. Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, asserts that description of his client’s property in Ext.P11, as ‘Wet Land’ is egregiously improper and incorrect because, even though it may have been so in the distant past - which has caused it to be so shown in the Revenue Records - for the last several decades, it has been remaining as ‘Dry Land’ on which several constructions and developments have taken place. He submits that, therefore, the Authority competent to fix compensation and to issue the Award under the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ cannot rely on the categorisation and classification of the property in the Revenue Records, but is obligated to act as per Section 26 of the said Act; which mandates determination of the present and prevailing market value of the property, notwithstanding its tenure recorded therein. 5. The afore submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were answered by Sri. Jafer Khan - learned Government Pleader, relying upon a statement filed by the 4th respondent, wherein, Annexure-R4(a) proceedings of the District Collector has been appended to. 5. The afore submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were answered by Sri. Jafer Khan - learned Government Pleader, relying upon a statement filed by the 4th respondent, wherein, Annexure-R4(a) proceedings of the District Collector has been appended to. He argued that, as is limpid from Annexure-R4(a), dated 06.11.2021, the property of the petitioner - as also the other properties involved in acquisition - has not been subjected to an assessment of its market value based solely on the Revenue Records or even on the Fair Value Notification; but that documents of comparable properties were taken into account, leading to the categorisation of the various lands acquired into different classes, based on its essential physical and infrastructural attributes and its values fixed accordingly. He submitted that, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner, that her property will be assessed only as a ‘Wet Land’ merely because its tenure has been so shown in the Revenue Records, is without any basis. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 6. Sri. Jaju Babu - learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. M.U. Vijayalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the KMRL, submitted that though his client has no role to play in the controversy projected in this Writ Petition, they are concerned because, on account of the pendency of this case and the interim order issued, the work with respect to the construction of the Metro line has been held up in the stretch in question. He thus submitted that, therefore, this Court may evaluate the contentions of the petitioner, as is necessary in law; but may permit the KMRL to take advance possession of her property, so that the work may not be impeded. 7. In reply, Sri. T.R.S. Kumar responded saying that though his client is willing to handover possession of her property to the KMRL, the adjudication of its value by the competent Authority - based on the mandatory requirements under Section 26 of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ may be directed to be completed without any avoidable delay, so that she can then obtain further recourse. 8. I have evaluated and considered the afore submissions from the touchstone of the various materials available on record, as also the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act. 9. 8. I have evaluated and considered the afore submissions from the touchstone of the various materials available on record, as also the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act. 9. There can be little doubt that, going by the statutory scheme under the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ the District Collector is obligated, under Section 11(5) thereof, to update the Revenue Records even before the issuance of notice under Section 11(1). The specific contention of the petitioner, as argued by her learned counsel, is that this has not been done and it is, therefore, that the controversy in this case has arisen. 10. I must say that I find some force in the afore submissions of Sri. T.R.S. Kumar, but it may not be necessary for this Court to dwell upon it any further because, as seen above, Sri. Jafer Khan - learned Government Pleader, submits that Annexure-R4(a) order has already been issued by the District Collector, which fixes the land value of the various properties - including that of the petitioner - without reference to the Revenue Records, but taking into account its actual market value, edifice on the stipulations under Section 26(1)(b) of the Fair Compensation Act. 11. However, before I tread forward, a glance through Section 26 of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ becomes necessary. As per this Section, the District Collector is mandated to adopt the criteria specified therein for determining the market value of the acquired land. As per the enumerated criteria, the District Collector can either fix the value of the acquired property based on the market value specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1989; or by examining and evaluating the average sale price of similar types of lands situated in the nearest vicinity; or can take into account the conceded amount of compensation, if the parties so agree. 12. In the case at hand, it is admitted that there is no notification issued under the Indian Stamp Act with respect to the value of the property, though, under the Kerala Stamp Act, a Fair Value Notification certainly appears to be in force. However, as I have already indicted above, Annexure-R4(a) disregards such valuation and has proceeded to categorize the acquired properties based on certain specified qualifications, fixing the rates eligible to each of them in such manner. 13. However, as I have already indicted above, Annexure-R4(a) disregards such valuation and has proceeded to categorize the acquired properties based on certain specified qualifications, fixing the rates eligible to each of them in such manner. 13. Therefore, the only question is whether the District Collector can be seen to have proceeded as per Section 26 of the Fair Compensation Act. As is perspicuous, Section 26 of the said Act allows the District Collector to fix the market value under the three methods mentioned above and the Statement filed by him on record makes it indubitable that he has chosen the second among them, namely by examining the average sale price for similar types of lands situated in the nearest vicinity. In fact, Sri. Jaffer Khan - learned Government Pleader, submitted that more than ten documents had been taken into account for this purpose and that the categorization of the lands and its values shown in Annexure-R4(a) was thus finalised. 14. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader as afore, since Section 26 of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ mandates that the District Collector shall adopt the criteria mentioned therein for determining the market value, I am certain that the petitioner has to be heard, so that she can produce her own documents and other materials before the said Authority, as to establish the average sale price of similar types of lands in the nearest vicinity. Such an opportunity to the petitioner is un-expendable because, as seen above, among the three alternatives available in Section 26 of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ the statement of the District Collector shows that he has chosen the second one, which certainly enjoins him to consider every document that may be presented before him by the owners of the acquired lands, with respect to the properties situated in the vicinity. 15. In the afore perspective, even though I cannot find fault with the District Collector in having issued Annexure-R4(a) and in making certain categorisation of the properties therein, it cannot be the sole input, based on which, the Award with respect to the petitioner’s property can be passed. 15. In the afore perspective, even though I cannot find fault with the District Collector in having issued Annexure-R4(a) and in making certain categorisation of the properties therein, it cannot be the sole input, based on which, the Award with respect to the petitioner’s property can be passed. The catergorisation therein can certainly be used as a broad and general guideline, but the District Collector must surely hear the petitioner and assess the documents to be produced by her, thus to verify the average sale price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, which must then be adopted as the market value of her acquired land, de hors its description in the Revenue Records. I am certain that if this is done, the apprehension of the petitioner will be allayed, particularly because the Statement of the District Collector unequivocally avers that the tenure of the property, recorded in Ext.P11, is of no relevance to the Award proceedings. 16. Resultantly and for the reasons above, I order this Writ Petition in the following manner: (a) The 5th respondent-KMRL is permitted to take advance possession of the property of the petitioner, after following due procedure, based on her consent and in terms of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 1/2021 before this Court. (b) The District Collector will proceed to determine the market price of the petitioner’s property as per my afore observations and after affording her an opportunity of being heard and of producing all documents in substantiation of her claim, strictly in terms of Section 26(1)(b) of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ and then conclude the Award proceedings as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For this purpose, I permit the petitioner to produce all documents and materials, which she intends to rely upon, before the District Collector within a period of two weeks from the date on which she receives this judgment. (c) The petitioner will mark appearance before the District Collector at 11 a.m. on 20.12.2021 in which event, the said Authority shall either hear her or fix another convenient date for hearing and assess her version, as also the documents produced by her, thus completing the afore ordered exercise. (c) The petitioner will mark appearance before the District Collector at 11 a.m. on 20.12.2021 in which event, the said Authority shall either hear her or fix another convenient date for hearing and assess her version, as also the documents produced by her, thus completing the afore ordered exercise. (d) It is also needless to say that while completing the afore exercise, the District Collector shall not go by the tenure of the property reflected in Ext.P11, but will determine its market value based on the stipulations in Section 26(1)(b) of the Fair Compensation Act.