Kerala High Court
M.J.Philip vs The Specila Tahsildar Land Acquisition on 16 October, 2025
LA.APP. NO. 632 OF 2013 1 2025:KER:77035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 632 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.03.2013 IN LAR NO.13 OF 2003
OF THE SUB COURT, HOSDRUG
APPELLANT/CLAIMANTS 1, 3 TO 9:
1 M.J.PHILIP
MAMPALLIL HOUSE,PADNEKKAD,KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG
TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 JITHESH PHILIP
S/O.M.J.PHILIP, DO.. DO.. DO...
3 MOLLY RAFI
D/O.M.J.PHILIP, DO.. DO..
4 NANCY JACOB
DO... DO....DO...
5 LESILY WILSON
DO.. DO.. DO..
6 LINCY JAMES
DO.. DO.. DO..
7 ALPHONSA BIJU
DO.. DO.. DO..
8 RAJESH PHILIP
S/O.M.J.PHILIP, DO.. DO.. DO..
BY ADV SHRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
LA.APP. NO. 632 OF 2013 2 2025:KER:77035
RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER:
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION(NH) KANNUR,
PIN-670 002.
ADV REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LA.APP. NO. 632 OF 2013 3 2025:KER:77035
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are claimants 1 , 3 to 9 in LAR No.13 of 2003 of the Sub-Court, Hosdurg. Initially a judgment was passed on 06.10.2009 by fixing the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent. The Government challenged the said judgment by approaching this Court in LAA No.305 of 2011. The appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench on 25.07.2012. The matter was remanded. However a condition was incorporated which is extracted hereunder:
"However, there will be a condition that if under the revised award, the claimants become eligible for more compensation than what is presently awarded to them under the impugned award, such enhanced compensation will not carry any interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 06.10.2009 till the date of the revised order."
2. On remand, the matter was reconsidered by the Sub Court. On 25.03.2013, the impugned judgment was passed. The Land Acquisition Court granted enhanced compensation. However, interest on the enhanced amount was not granted for the period from 06.10.2009 to the date of revised judgment, ie; 25.03.2013. This was in compliance with the condition imposed by the learned Division Bench in the judgment in LAA No.305 of 2011. Aggrieved by the denial of interest, this appeal was filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the LA.APP. NO. 632 OF 2013 4 2025:KER:77035 learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Susamma Baby v. State of Kerala and Another [2013 (1) KHC 764]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held in the said case that while remanding the case to the Reference Court for reconsideration, High Court cannot impose a condition that if the claimant is found entitled to an enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation would not carry interest which is otherwise allowable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. He, therefore, submitted that the legal position is well settled and the condition imposed by the learned Division Bench in its judgment in LAA No.305 of 2011 was not sustainable. He, therefore, submitted that the appellants cannot be denied the statutory interest in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the judgment in LAA No.305 of 2011 was not challenged by the appellants and it became final. She contended that the condition imposed in the judgment by the Division Bench would, therefore, bind the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants is right in contending that the legal position, as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in LA.APP. NO. 632 OF 2013 5 2025:KER:77035 favour of the appellants. However the judgment in LAA No.305 of 2011 became final and the condition imposed would, therefore, bind both sides. The Reference Court followed the judgment of the Division Bench and excluded interest for the period from 06.10.2009 till the date of passing of the revised judgment.
7. The Reference Court was undoubtedly bound to follow the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Division Bench. In Achuthan Nair v. Raman & Others [1979 KLT 119] it was held that where the Appellate Court has acted within its jurisdiction in remanding a case, it is the duty of the Subordinate Court to carryout the terms of the order of remand. Therefore, it cannot be held that any error was committed by the Reference Court by excluding interest. In view of the judgment dated 25.07.2012 by the learned Division Bench in LAA No.305 of 2011, which became final, the challenge raised in this appeal cannot be accepted, as the appellants are bound by the inter-partes verdict.
In view of the afore discussions, the Land Acquisition Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE MC/17.10