Kerala High Court
P.V .Paru vs The Special Tahsildar(La) on 14 January, 2026
2026:KER:2845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
RP NO. 1553 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2025 IN LA.App.
NO.290 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT
P.V .PARU,
AGED 68 YEARS,
D/O. AMBU, RESIDING AT KUNNARUVATH, VALLIKKUNNU,
KARIYAMKODU P.O, NILESHWAR, PEROLE VILAGE,HOSDURG
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671314
BY ADVS.
SMT.HEMALATHA
SRI.BINU GEORGE
RESPONDENTS
1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),
NH DIVISION, KANNUR AT THALASSERY,
PIN - 670001
2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NH DIVISION , KANNUR,
PIN - 670001
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD,
PIN - 682031
2026:KER:2845
RP No.1553 of 2025
2
SMT.K.M.RESHMI, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:2845
RP No.1553 of 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026
1. The appellant in LAA No.290/2018 has filed this Review Petition to review the judgment dated 18.09.2025 and to enhance the land value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per cent.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this Court relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in LAA Nos.1473/2009 and 603/2010 arising from the very same acquisition under a different category and granted enhancement to the petitioner. There is a calculation mistake in fixing the compensation. This Court mistakenly found that in the judgment of the Division Bench in LAA Nos.1473/2009 and 603/2010, Rs.4,905/- per Are awarded by the LAO was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- by this Court. Learned Counsel contended that in L.A.R. No.5/2004 from which LAA No.603/2010 is filed, Rs.5,685.99 is awarded for 2.43 Ares and thus the land value awarded by the LAO is Rs.2,339/- per Are and 2026:KER:2845 RP No.1553 of 2025 4 the same was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per cent by this Court. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to the same rate of enhancement.
3. The learned Government Pleader contended that the land value awarded by the LAO could not be found by dividing the total land value by the extent of land acquired in LAR No.5/2004, as the acquired land involved both dry land and wetland, and both the comparable land value method and capitalization method are adopted to fix the total value. This Court rightly fixed the land value relying on the figures in LAR No.2/2004 from which LAA No.1473/2009 is filed.
4. I have considered the rival contentions.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, in the judgment in LAR No.5/2004, the rate of market value for the dry land is not separately shown. The total land value of Rs.5,685.99 is granted for 2.43 Ares, calculating the land value for the dry land as well as the wetland and also on the basis of the comparable 2026:KER:2845 RP No.1553 of 2025 5 land value method and capitalization method. Hence, the said judgment in LAR No.5/2004 and the enhancement given in LAA No.603/2010 could not be taken into consideration to fix the market value of the land in the petitioner's case.
6. As per the impugned judgment, this Court fixed land value at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per cent as against the land value at the rate of Rs.2,943.25 per Are fixed by the LAO, which is confirmed by the Reference Court relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in LAA Nos.1473/2009 and 603/2010 arising from the very same acquisition under a different category and granted the same rate of enhancement to the petitioner. The rate of land value of Rs.4,905/- per Are could be clearly found out from the judgment in LAR No.2/2004 by dividing the total compensation of Rs.26,930.76 with the extent of 5.49 Ares. In the judgment in LAR No.2/2004, Rs.4,905/- per are awarded by the LAO was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per cent by the Reference Court and to 2026:KER:2845 RP No.1553 of 2025 6 Rs.60,000/- by this Court in the judgment in LAA Nos.1473/2009 and 603/2010. Rs.2,943.25 is 60% of Rs.4,905/-. The land value in the case of the petitioner was rightly fixed at Rs.36,000/- per cent, taking 60% of Rs.60,000/- per cent. There is no error of calculation or error apparent on the face of the record to entertain the review. Accordingly, I do not find any ground or reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, and this Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE Cak 2026:KER:2845 RP No.1553 of 2025 7 APPENDIX OF RP NO. 1553 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 18.09.2025 IN LA. APPL. NO. 290/2018 ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 14.01.2011 IN LA. APPL. NO. 603/2010 ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF DECREE DATED 16.11.2017 IN LAR. NO. 2/2004 OF SUB COURT, HOSDURG ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 16.11.2017 IN LAR. NO. 2/2004 OF SUB COURT, HOSDURG ANNEXURE A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 16.06.2009 IN LAR. NO. 5/2004 OF SUB COURT, HOSDURG