Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By The ... vs Sabu S/O Ismail Kunju on 19 November, 2025
2025:KER:88669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 28TH KARTHIKA,
1947
LA.APP. NO. 41 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN LAR NO.51 OF
2021 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT IN LAR:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM,REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
BY ADV.SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP
RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT:
SABU S/O ISMAIL KUNJU,
NADAKKAVIL VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691010.
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
LA.App.No.41 of 2025 2 2025:KER:88669
JUDGMENT
State has come up with this appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2024 in LAR No.51/21 of the 2 nd Addl. District Court, Kollam. Though notice was issued, there is no appearance for the respondent.
2. An extent of 0.20 Ares (0.4 cents) of land comprised in re-survey No.453/3-3 of Mundakkal Village in Kollam Taluk was acquired for the purpose of construction of Eravipuram Railway Over-bridge and its approach road. Notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued on 17.09.2019. Possession of the land was taken and handed over to the requisition Authority on 15.01.2021. The land value was fixed as Rs.7,61,483/- per are on 15.01.2021 and an award for a sum of Rs.5,38,941/- was passed in favour of the claimant on 15.01.2021. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted, the respondent/claimant sought reference under Section 64 of the Act.
3. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- settlement Authority, Kollam, considered the reference. Claimant produced certified copy of the sale deed No.1880/17 of LA.App.No.41 of 2025 3 2025:KER:88669 Eravipuram SRO as Ext.A1. The claimant was examined as PW1. The appellants herein did not adduce any evidence. On conclusion of the trial, the reference was answered by the learned Authority as follows:-
"a) The claimant is entitled to get enhanced land value of Rs. 6,17,284/- for 0.20 ares (Rs. 30,86,419/- per are).
b) He is entitled to get 12% of the enhanced land value with effect from 15/02/2019 to 31/12/2020.
c) He is further entitled to get 100% of the enhanced compensation as solatium.
d) The claimant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. for a period of one year from 15/01/2021 and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the date of deposit of the entire amount before this Authority.
e) The claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.
14,04,321/- with regard to the remaining unacquired property of an extent of 0.20 ares in resurvey No. 453/3-3 under Section 28, the 3rd and 4th proviso of the Act with 6% interest from the date of this order till the date of realisation.
f) The claimant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation under section 28 fifth proviso.
g) The claimant is entitled to a one time payment of three lacs under rehabilitation and resettlement package.
h) The amount already paid to the claimant under the above heads can be deducted from this amount."
4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader. As noted above, there is no appearance for the respondent.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader contended that the learned Authority fixed the land value by relying on Ext.A1 document and there was no other material LA.App.No.41 of 2025 4 2025:KER:88669 taken into consideration. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that there was no evidence for the learned Authority to conclude that the property covered by Ext.A1 was comparable to the land acquired from the claimant. She also submitted that the compensation was fixed by the acquiring Authority by taking into account the various sale deeds, and, that a just compensation was fixed by taking into account the average of the consideration shown in those documents. However, the learned Authority, without taking into account any other materials placed reliance on Ext. A1 and accepted the fanciful value shown in the said document for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired property. She submitted that the method adopted by the learned Authority is faulty and the Authority has committed a serious error by blindly relying on Ext.A1.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader further contended that the learned Authority has granted interest at the rate of 12% for the enhanced land value w.e.f. 15.02.2019 to 31.12.2020, whereas the notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued only on 17.09.2019. She therefore submitted that the entitlement for enhanced land value ought to have been granted only w.e.f. 17.09.2019. Further, the learned Senior Government Pleader also contended that the learned Authority LA.App.No.41 of 2025 5 2025:KER:88669 went wrong in awarding an amount of Rs.14,04,321/- under Clauses 3 and 4 of Section 28 of the Act. She submitted that there was no evidence for the Authority to hold that the remaining property was adversely affected by acquisition of a very small extent of 0.4 cents. Learned Senior Government Pleader also assailed granting of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Clause 5 of Section 28 of the Act. She also took exception to granting of Rs.3,00,000/- under the Rehabilitation and Re- settlement package.
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader made reference to Section 69 of the Right to Fair Compensation of Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, and submitted that, while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the Authority is bound to take into consideration whether the Collector had followed the parameter set out under Sections 26 to 30 and also the provisions in Chapter V. She therefore submitted that it was incumbent on the Authority to address the issue as to whether the Collector had followed the parameters while determining the compensation. The learned Senior Government Pleader, argued that the Authority has not applied it's mind in the matter as required under Section 69 of the Act.
LA.App.No.41 of 2025 6 2025:KER:88669
8. I have perused the impugned judgment and also the records apart from hearing the learned Senior Government Pleader. Regarding the submission that the learned Authority went wrong in relying on Ext.A1 document to fix the land value of the acquired property, it is to be noted that there was no other material before the learned Authority. However, perusal of the evidence of PW1 would show that the property covered by Ext.A1 was situated at a distance of 300 mts. from the property of the respondent. He has also stated that the property covered by Ext.A1 was situated close to the National Highway, whereas his property is situated at a distance. The proximity to National Highway is an important factor with respect to the value of the land. Therefore, accepting the value shown in Ext.A1, as such, for determining the market value of the acquired property without considering any other documents pertaining to the transactions in the area was not a right approach. However, it is also to be noted that the appellant had not adduced any evidence or placed any documents before the Authority in support of their case.
9. With respect to granting of interest at the rate of 12% for the enhanced land value, I find considerable merit in the contention of the Senior Government Pleader that the notification under Section 11 of the Act was issued on 17.09.2019 and LA.App.No.41 of 2025 7 2025:KER:88669 therefore the claimant was entitled for interest only from that date.
10. With respect to the compensation granted under Clauses 3 and 4 of Section 28, it is to be noted that there was no evidence/ material available on record for the learned Authority to conclude that the remaining property was adversely affected. It is worthy to mention in this regard that the extent of acquisition was very small in this case and only an extent of 0.20 Ares were acquired from a total extent of 4.55 Ares of property. Perusal of the evidence of the PW1 would show that he has no case before the Authority as to how the value of the remaining property was adversely affected by the acquisition. Similarly, it is also to be noted that, the claimant had stated during his cross examination that he continues to run the provisions store in the same place after acquisition. Therefore, whether the claimant was entitled for any compensation under Clause 5 of Section 28 is also doubtful, as there was no change of place of business. Likewise granting of Rs.3,00,000/- as one time payment under the Rehabilitation and Re-settlement package, despite granting of Rs.2,00,000/- by the land acquisition authorities also does not appear to be sustainable for want of supporting reasons.
LA.App.No.41 of 2025 8 2025:KER:88669
11. Taking into account the above aspects, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. I am of the view that, in the interest of justice, this matter can be remitted for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The LAR is remitted for fresh consideration by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Kollam. The Authority shall endeavor to pass fresh judgment as early as possible.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE ANA