Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1773 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Padmakumari

2025-07-02

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

body2025
JUDGMENT : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. The State Government has filed these 46 numbers of Land Acquisition Appeals under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L.A.Act, 2013’). 2. These Appeals arise from 46 numbers of Land Acquisition References disposed by the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Alappuzha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Authority’) by a common Award dated 09.03.2020. The Reference Authority treated LAR No.5/2019 as the leading case. 3. The State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act, 1894’) to acquire 21.580 hectares of land spread in 9 villages, namely, Karumadi, Karuvatta, Cheruthana, Haripad, Thakazhi South, Thakazhi North, Kumarapuram, Ambalappuzha and Veeyapuram in Karthikappally, Ambalappuzha and Kuttanad Taluks for doubling the railway track between Haripad and Ambalappuzha. Later, the total extent of land required for acquisition was reduced to 19.24.33 Hectares. The land involved in the present References are dry land in category No.D situated in Karumady village. The description of category No.D is ‘dry land without pathway’. 4. Section 4(1) Notification under the LA Act, 1894 is dated 24.06.2010. Section 6(1) declaration under the LA Act, 1894 is dated 18.06.2011. When the LA Act, 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014, on the direction of the Government, the Land Acquisition Officer passed temporary Awards, fixing the land value @ Rs.66,363/-, as the Rules under LA Act, 2013 were not framed. After framing the Rules, the Land Acquisition Officer passed final Awards fixing land value @ Rs.68,830/- per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer considered four sale deeds – Sale Deed No.1501/2010 dated 21.04.2010, Sale Deed No.2182/2010 dated 17.06.2010, Sale Deed No.386/2009 dated 18.02.2009 and Sale Deed No.1936/2010 dated 31.05.2010 to fix the land value. The Land Acquisition Officer took the average land value after totalling the land value in these four documents. 5. The District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) was constituted as per the direction of the District Collector, Alappuzha and the DLPC had fixed the market value of the land after conducting a detailed negotiation with landowners. The DLPC had fixed the land value @ Rs.2,16,212/- per Are. 5. The District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) was constituted as per the direction of the District Collector, Alappuzha and the DLPC had fixed the market value of the land after conducting a detailed negotiation with landowners. The DLPC had fixed the land value @ Rs.2,16,212/- per Are. The formula adopted by DLPC was to take 200% of the basic land value with 30% solatium and 12% additional land value [Basic Land value + 30% Solatium +12 Addl Land Value) X 200%]. With respect to the category of the present cases, 30% solatium and 12% additional land value for the period from 24.06.2010 to 17.07.2015 was added to the basic land value of Rs.66,363/- and then multiplied by 200% to find out the market value. The market value fixed by the DLPC was approved by the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC). Several landowners settled their claims by accepting the market value fixed by the DLPC. 6. The landowners who did not accept the DLPC price sought reference under Section 64 of the LA Act, 2013, alleging the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the joint trial of the 46 References, the first claimant in LAR No.54/2019 was examined as AW1, the claimant in LAR No.57/2019 was examined as BW1, the claimant in LAR No.39/2019 was examined as CW1 and the Claimant in LAR No.46/2019 was examined as DW1. All the witnesses produced copies of the Sale Deed No. 3015/2009 and the same were marked as Ext.A1, B1, C1 & D1. CW1 produced the Award Notice and the same was marked as Ext.C2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. 7. The Reference Authority awarded enhanced compensation fixing the land value @ Rs.1,99,089/- per Are. Even though the Reference Authority granted enhancement for the improvements, etc, since the same are not the subject matter of these appeals, the details of the same are not stated in this judgement. The Reference Authority fixed the land value relying on the basic land value fixed by the DLPC and fixed market value, adding 200% of the basic land value to the basic land . The Reference Authority fixed the land value relying on the basic land value fixed by the DLPC and fixed market value, adding 200% of the basic land value to the basic land . value [Basic Land Value + 200% of Basic Land Value] In effect, 300% of the basic land value of Rs.66,363/- per Are fixed by the DLPC was taken to arrive at the market value of Rs.1,99,089/- per Are fixed by the Reference Authority. 8. In these appeals, the appellant is challenging the enhancement given by the Reference Authority on various grounds. The main dispute is with respect to the formula followed by the Reference Authority for arriving at the market value. Since the very same formula was applied by the Reference Authority in almost all the Land Acquisition References arising from 9 Villages acquired as per the same Section 4(1) Notification, the State Government has filed appeals against all the Awards of the Reference Authority. It is informed that more than 400 appeals are pending before this Court. The finding on the legality of the said formula adopted by the Reference Authority in these appeals would be binding on other pending appeals also and hence other interested counsel, who appear for the claimants were also permitted to address their arguments. 9. I heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Rekha C. Nair for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants and the Central Government Standing Counsel for the Requiring Body-Southern Railway. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader contended that the method adopted by the Reference Authority for arriving at the market value is illegal and unsustainable. The determination of land value by the Reference Authority is not in accordance with Section 69 of the LA Act, 2013. Section 69 provides that in determining the amount of compensation, the Reference Authority shall take into consideration whether the Collector has followed the parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30 of the LA Act, 2013. Section 26 provides the criteria for assessing and determining the market value of the land. The Reference records would clearly prove that the Land Acquisition Officer followed the criteria mentioned in sub-clause (b) of Section 26(1) to fix the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has followed the guidelines prescribed under Explanations 1 & 2 to Section 26(1) while fixing the land value. The Reference records would clearly prove that the Land Acquisition Officer followed the criteria mentioned in sub-clause (b) of Section 26(1) to fix the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has followed the guidelines prescribed under Explanations 1 & 2 to Section 26(1) while fixing the land value. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded fair compensation fixing the land value at Rs.68,830/- per Are. The claimant did not adduce any evidence to prove that the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not fair and reasonable. The claimants did not have any case that any relevant document showing the higher market value was not taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the land value. It is not legally permissible to follow the criteria adopted by the DLPC. The Reference Authority has fixed the land value taking 300% of the basic land value fixed by the DLPC. No sustainable reason is stated by the Reference Authority for giving 200% enhancement from the basic land value when the DLPC has given only 100% increase from the basic land value fixed by the DLPC. The learned Senior Government Pleader cited the decisions of this Court in Subhakumar K.T. v. District Collector, Kozhikode [2025 KHC 583], the Judgment of this Court dated 19.03.2024 in R.P.No.1024/2022 & the judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2025 in LA. Appeal No.513/2022 & connected cases, in support of her contentions. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants in these appeals contended that the impugned awards are perfectly legal and valid. The fixation of market value by the Reference Authority on guesstimation is perfectly legal and sustainable. The Reference Authority did such an exercise taking into account the object of the enactment and to ensure fair compensation to the landowners. The State Government is illegally adding various additional benefits under the LA Act, 2013, to contend that the land value awarded by the Reference Authority is exorbitant. The bare value of Rs.1,99,089/- fixed by the Reference Authority could not be stated as high when the land value prevalent in the State as on the date of Section 4(1) Notification is taken into consideration. The Requiring Body- Southern Railway has not filed any appeal and it has accepted the impugned awards. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Santhakumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. The Requiring Body- Southern Railway has not filed any appeal and it has accepted the impugned awards. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Santhakumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [ 2016 (3) KHC 757 ], State of Kerala v. V.J. Mathew [2024 (3) KLT 371], Aleyas K.C. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC 144 ] and Shubha Kumar K.T. v. District Collector, Kozhikode [2025 KHC 583] in support of their contentions. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Southern Railway supported the arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned Standing Counsel contended that Southern Railway need not file an appeal against the impugned Awards since the State Government has filed appeals against the impugned Awards. The learned counsel invited my attention to the definition of ‘requiring body’ under Section 3(zb) of the LA Act, 2013, which includes the appropriate Government also. The learned Counsel for the Railway relied on the decisions of this Court in George Pothan v. State of Kerala & Ors. [MANU/KE/1192/2025] and Aleyas K.C. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC 144 ] in support of their contentions. 13. I have considered the rival contentions. 14. In these cases, from the side of the claimants, four of the claimants themselves gave oral evidence as AW1, BW1, CW1 and DW1. Only one copy of Sale Deed No.3015/2019 was marked from the side of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents, the State and the Railway. The Reference Authority has not relied on the evidence from the part of the claimants. Neither the appellant nor the respondents in these appeals rely on the oral or documentary evidence adduced before the Reference Authority. It appears from the impugned Award that the Reference Authority relied on the facts available in the Reference files for fixing the market value. The Reference Authority found that the Land Acquisition Officer did neither consider the values mentioned under Section 26(1) (a) or 26(1)(c) of the LA Act, 2013 nor consider all the sale deeds of similar type of land in that village or near the vicinity area as stated in Explanation 1 of Section 26(1) and that the Land Acquisition Officer did not take one half of the total number of sale deeds in which highest sale price has been mentioned as stated in Explanation 2 of Section 26(1). But the Reference Court has not stated which are those documents that were omitted to be included by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even the claimants did not produce any material document having higher value claiming that such document was omitted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, the aforesaid findings of the Reference Authority is unsustainable. The Counsel for the respondents/claimants cited the Single Bench decision of this Court in Santhakumar (supra) to substantiate the point that if the DLPC price is higher, the Land Acquisition Officer should take the same. The learned Senior Government Pleader cited the judgment in R.P No.1024/2022 of the Division Bench of this Court arising from Santhakumar (supra) in which it is clarified that the aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge has no bearing in the matter as the determination only has to be made under Section 26(1) (a) to (c) alone. The said decision was rendered in a Writ Petition challenging the award of the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the determination was not in accordance with Section 26 of the LA Act, 2013. It is not applicable to the determination of market value by the Court. 15. In Aleyas K.P (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the if the restrictive covenants under Section 26 of the LA Act, 2013 is unworkable the Court will have to step in and apply the principles of guesstimation. It is not applicable to the determination of market value by the Court. 15. In Aleyas K.P (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the if the restrictive covenants under Section 26 of the LA Act, 2013 is unworkable the Court will have to step in and apply the principles of guesstimation. In Shubha Kumar K.T. (supra) , the Division Bench of this Court following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. Harnand Singh (deceased) Through Lrs and Others [2024 KHC OnLine 6358] held that the exercise of "guesstimation" has also to conform to a certain rationale; that there cannot be an arbitrary fixation of market value based on no evidence; that guesstimation is a heuristic device that enables the court, in the absence of direct evidence and relevant sale exemplars, to make a reasonable and informed guess or estimation of the market value of the land under acquisition, and concomitantly the compensation payable by the appropriate Government; that while the Court can use the principle of guesstimation in reasonably estimating the value of land in the absence of direct evidence, the exercise ought not to be purely hypothetical; and that instead, the Court must embrace a holistic view and consider all relevant factors and existing evidence, even if not directly comparable, to arrive at a fair determination of compensation. In George Pothan (supra) also very same principle is laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. The decision in V.J. Mathew (supra) is cited by the counsel for the respondents/claimants to contend that by the enactment of LA Act, 2013, the legislature intended to adopt any criteria which is higher and beneficial to the claimant. 16. The Reference Authority found that the market value fixed by the DLPC is acceptable as it is the value of the very same properties fixed at an earlier that by a competent forum and that the method adopted by the DLPC is more acceptable as it is closer to reality. This finding of the Reference Authority is sound and reasonable in the absence of any material before the Reference Authority to fix the market value. The Reference Authority found out the basic land value from the DLPC price for fixing the market value and then added 200% of the same to fix the land value. This finding of the Reference Authority is sound and reasonable in the absence of any material before the Reference Authority to fix the market value. The Reference Authority found out the basic land value from the DLPC price for fixing the market value and then added 200% of the same to fix the land value. The land value fixed by the Reference Authority is Rs.1,99,089/-. In effect, it is 300% of the basic land value fixed by the DLPC. The DLPC took only 200% of the basic land value with Solatium & Additional Market value under the LA Act,1894, to fix the DLPC price. The reasons for adding 200% to the Basic land value of the DLPC by the Reference Authority are that the LA Act, 2013 is a beneficial legislation which ensures a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition; that it provides just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired; that factors like mental agony and inconvenience to the landowners and adverse impact on the utility of the remaining properties are to be considered while fixing the market value. I am of the view that this approach of the Reference Authority is not acceptable. Of course, the LA Act, 2013, is enacted to ensure fair compensation to the landowners whose lands are acquired. Section 26 provides a criterion for the determination of land value. It does not include the aforesaid factors relied on by the Reference Authority. The aforesaid factors are well protected by the various benefits provided under the LA Act 2013, such as addition by multiplier provided in the First Schedule, 100% Solatium, 12% Additional Market Value and compensation for severance and injurious affection and provision for rehabilitation. The market value has to be determined by the Reference Court independently of these factors. The DLPC granted a 100 % addition to land value proved by the documents before it taking into consideration the fact that sale deeds would not reflect the actual value. The said approach appears to be fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is informed that several landowners accepted the DLPC price and it would reveal that the price fixed by the DLPC was reasonable. There is no rationale to add 200% to the basic land value by the Reference Court instead of 100% added by the DLPC. It is informed that several landowners accepted the DLPC price and it would reveal that the price fixed by the DLPC was reasonable. There is no rationale to add 200% to the basic land value by the Reference Court instead of 100% added by the DLPC. No sustainable reason is stated for adding 200% to the basic land value found by the DLPC. Of course, if the claimants had adduced any evidence to claim higher compensation than the DLPC price, the claimants would have been entitled for fixation of a higher market value than the DLPC price. But nothing is produced from their side. Such an addition of 200% by the Reference Authority is arbitrary and without any material to support the same. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation fixing land value @ Rs.68,830/-. If DLPC proceedings are eschewed, this Court has no other option than to confirm the fixation of land @ Rs.68,830/- by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even the DLPC proceedings are not properly proved in evidence by marking the same. This Court finds that confirmation of the fixation of land value @ Rs.68,830/- by this Court would be an injustice to the claimants. The Details of the DLPC price are available in the Reference files. In the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the State Government in these appeals, the method of calculation by the DLPC for fixing the market value is specifically stated. Hence this Court is perfectly justified in relying on those materials in the DLPC proceedings, though the same is not properly proved before the Reference Authority. It is submitted by the learned Counsel on both sides that in all appeals in which interim stay of the impugned award is passed, the same is subject to the condition to deposit 50% of the award amount. The State Government has not objected release of 50% of the award amount to the respondents/claimants. On account of this fact, it could be assumed that the State Government does not have objection to extent of 50% of the award amount. 17. It is true that DLPC added 100% addition to Solatium and Additional Land Value. The DLPC had taken the percentage of Solatium and Additional Land Value under LA Act,1894, which are 30% and 12% respectively. In the LA Act, 2013, they are 100% and 12% respectively. The multiplier adopted is 1.4. 17. It is true that DLPC added 100% addition to Solatium and Additional Land Value. The DLPC had taken the percentage of Solatium and Additional Land Value under LA Act,1894, which are 30% and 12% respectively. In the LA Act, 2013, they are 100% and 12% respectively. The multiplier adopted is 1.4. The claimants are getting far better benefits than the DLPC price. Hence the claimants are not entitled to get an addition on solatium and additional land value. Such additions to Solatium and Additional Land Value are not permissible under the LA Act, 2013. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the criteria which I adopt for determining the land value is 200 % of the Basic Land Value fixed by DLPC. 19. In these cases, DLPC has fixed Rs.66,363/- per Are and 200% of the same is Rs.1,32,726/- per Are.