Appeal against damages decree for breach of land acquisition agreement. High Court found no reason to interfere, upholding Sub Judge's award for tree cutting and demolition costs while dismissing claims based on alleged enhanced land value demands.
Appeal failed and was dismissed; impugned decree in favor of Plaintiffs remains.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946
RFA NO. 384 OF 2003 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2003 IN OS NO.150 OF 1997 OF SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
STATE OF KERALA
AGED 1 YEARS
REP BY DIST. COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1T.K.KURUVILA
S/O KURUVILLA,THEKKUMKAL (H)
PARAMPUZHA P.O KOTTAYAM
2 IPE. T.KURUVILLA S/O KURUVILLA,THEKKUMKAL (H) PARAMPUZHA P.O KOTTAYAM3KURIAN.T.KURUVILLA
S/O KURUVILLA,THEKKUMKAL (H)
PARAMPUZHA P.O KOTTAYAM
BY ADVS.
LEO LUKOSE
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL(K/925/2009)
S.SREEDEV(K/1219/2006)
RONY JOSE(K/705/2012)
KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY(K/126/2010)
DERICK MATHAI SAJI(K/1901/2021)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON
24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA No.384 of 2003
..2..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2024
The defendant State is in appeal challenging the
judgment and decree in O.S. No.150/1997 of the
Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, dated 27.02.2003.
The suit was one for damages on account of breach
of contract. The plaintiffs (respondents herein)
were the owners of 15.5528 hectares of land, which
was sought to be acquired by the Government for
the Ponpally Industrial Development, which
acquisition was under the negotiated purchase
scheme of the earlier Land Acquisition Act. It was
agreed that the property will be acquired at the
rate of 5,500/- per cent. Government Order was₹
issued to that effect. The value of the structures
and trees in the property was not included in the
sale consideration. The total sale consideration
was ₹2,11,28,478/-. As per the original
RFA No.384 of 2003
..3..
understanding, the acquisition process was to be
completed on or before 30.03.1994. The said period
was extended to 30.06.1994, vide Ext.A9 Extension
Agreement. In the meantime, vide Ext.A8, the
District Collector directed the plaintiffs to cut
and remove 7500 rubber trees and also to demolish
the buildings, inclusive of a smoke shed and a
temporary shed in the scheduled premises. The said
direction was complied with by the plaintiffs.
However, the acquisition did not take place on
account of paucity of funds. Two notices were sent
by the plaintiffs on 09.09.1994 and 12.12.1994
respectively, demanding compliance of the
agreement for acquisition. Ext.B1 is the agreement
for passing the award. Ultimately, on 06.04.1995,
the plaintiffs terminated the agreement for non
compliance on the part of the defendant State. It
is the case propounded by the defendant State that
there was a joint conference between the
plaintiffs and the representatives of the
defendant, wherein the plaintiffs have demanded
RFA No.384 of 2003
..4..
enhanced land value at the rate of 20,000/- per₹
cent, for which, the State was not amenable.
After issuing notice, the suit was filed seeking
damages under various heads, which was, however,
limited to 25,00,000/-.₹
2.The specific defence taken was to the effect
that there was no direction to cut and remove the
trees and also to demolish the buildings. The 2nd
defence was to the effect that though there was
paucity of funds on the part of the Government,
the acquisition/transaction did not materialize on
account of the huge enhancement in the land value
sought for by the plaintiffs.
3.The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1
to A18, supported by the oral evidence of PW1 to
PW5, on the part of the plaintiffs. On behalf of
the defendant-State, Exts.B1 to B7 were marked.
However, no oral evidence was adduced.
RFA No.384 of 2003
..5..
4.On an analysis of the facts, evidence and
probabilities of the case, the learned Sub Judge
decreed the suit, awarding a sum of 7,00,000/- on₹
account of cutting and removal of trees,
calculated at the rate of ₹100/- per tree.
Towards compensation on account of demolition of
the buildings, a sum of 3,16,667/- was awarded,₹
together with interest. A total sum of
₹12,16,667/- was decreed, together with a future
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
5.Heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf
of the defendant State and the learned counsel for
the respondents.
6.It was contented by the learned Government
Pleader that the respondents/plaintiffs were not
justified in demanding enhancement of land value
of the rate of 20,000/- per cent, as against the₹
agreed rate of 5,500/- per cent, for which reason₹
only, the land acquisition proceedings could not
RFA No.384 of 2003
..6..
be completed. The bar under Section 11A of the
Land Acquisition Act was not properly considered
by the learned Sub Judge, is another contention
urged. It was further contented that the
plaintiffs have not proved the actual loss due to
the cutting of trees and demolition of the
buildings.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs argued in support of the
impugned judgment. It was submitted that all the
relevant aspects were considered in detail by the
learned Sub Judge, wherefore the judgment impugned
warrants no interference by this Court.
8.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, this Court finds no
reason, whatsoever, to interfere with well
considered judgment of the learned Sub Judge. The
first contention to the effect that there was no
direction to cut and remove the trees, as also,
RFA No.384 of 2003
..7..
for demolishing the buildings, is squarely in the
teeth of Ext.A8 document, issued by the District
Collector, which directed clearing the land by
removal of trees and buildings. It is only
accordingly that the plaintiffs have cut and
removed the rubber trees and demolished the
buildings. As regards the second contention
regarding the enhanced land value sought for by
the plaintiffs, the primary aspect to be noted is
that the same is not evidenced by any material,
whatsover. The defendant had not chosen to examine
any of its officials in proof of such assertion,
though the same is spoken to by PW5, the District
Collector, who was examined at the instance of the
plaintiffs. Secondly, the alleged joint conference
took place on 09.02.1995, by which time, the
original period, as also, the extended period
fixed for performance has already expired.
Therefore, the demand for enhanced land value
alleged to have been made by the plaintiffs cannot
be a reason for non-performance of the extended
RFA No.384 of 2003
..8..
agreement, or for that matter, the non
materialization of the acquisition proceedings. As
regards the third contention regarding the time
limit of two years prescribed in Section 11A of
the Land Acquisition Act, the bar will not operate
in cases where there is an agreement in terms of
Section 11(2). This aspect has been considered and
discussed by the learned Sub Judge in detail in
the impugned judgment, with which findings, this
Court agree respectfully.
9.It remains a fact that pursuant to the acts
and representations made by the defendant State,
acquisition proceedings were kept hanging on the
property of the plaintiffs from 30.11.1993, until
it was terminated by the plaintiffs by notice
dated 06.01.1994. It also remains unassailable
that based on the directions given vide Ext.A8,
the plaintiffs have removed 7500 rubber trees and
had demolished buildings in the plaint schedule
property, inclusive of a smoke shed and a
RFA No.384 of 2003
..9..
temporary shed. The value of compensation fixed
for the above referred items is only modest, which
by any reckoning can be treated as excessive or
exhorbitant. This Court finds no reason to
interfere with the well considered judgment of the
learned Sub Judge.
In the result, this appeal fails and the same will
stand dismissed.
Sd/-/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SSS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sub Judge's decree awarding damages for cutting and demolition.
Whether the demand for enhanced land value by plaintiffs is a valid reason for non-performance of acquisition.
Whether the time limit bar under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act applies when an agreement is made under Section 11(2).
STATE OF KERALA
T.K.KURUVILA AND OTHERS
C. JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court