Darvin Vs Kerala State

¶1

LAA No.109 of 2020 1 2025:KER:29098

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶7

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

LA.APP. NO. 109OF 2020

¶9

AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 IN LAR NO.7 OF

¶10

2009 OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶11

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS :

¶12

1 DARVIN
AGED 45 YEARS
SANKEERTHANAM, PARELLEL COLLEGE LANE,
KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572

¶13

2 DONALD LAD, SANKEERTHANAM, PARELLEL COLLEGE LANE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572

¶14

3 ROOHAMMA, SANKEERTHANAM, PARELLEL COLLEGE LANE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572

¶15

BY ADVS.
R.T.PRADEEP
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶17

1 KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043

¶18

2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004

¶19

LAA No.109 of 2020 2 2025:KER:29098

¶20

BY ADVS.
JOSEPH ANTONY C
RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)(R-191)

¶21

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

LAA No.109 of 2020 3 2025:KER:29098

¶23

DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & EASWARAN S., JJ. -------------------------------L.A.A. No.109 of 2020

¶24

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2025

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Easwaran S., J.

¶27

The appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.7 of 2009 on the files of the Sub Court, Nedumangad. A total extent of 293.55 Ares of land in Kulathummal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk was acquired for the construction of 220 KV Substation, Kattakada by the Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.B). The appellants had a total extent of 118.5 Ares of land which was the subject matter of notification under Section 4(1) dated 28.6.2008. The land acquisition officer categorised the land of the appellant under two categories i.e., 59.25 Ares of land in ‘A category’ and 59.25 Ares of land under ‘B category’ and awarded a sum of Rs.1,11,190/- per Are for the land covered under ‘A category’ and Rs.1,00,070/- for the land covered under ‘B category’. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was answered by the Sub Court, Nedumangad by judgment and decree dated 31.3.2014 by fixing the land value at Rs.1,00,000/- per

¶28

LAA No.109 of 2020 4 2025:KER:29098

¶29

Are for the property covered under ‘A category’ and Rs.80,000/- per Are for the property covered under ‘B category’. The claimant relied on the sale deed No.372/2007 dated 9.2.2007. The reference court accepted the land value under the aforesaid deed and accordingly fixed the above land value. The requestioning authority challenged the judgment and decree of the Sub Court in L.A.A No.117 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 23.1.2019 in L.A.A. No.117 of 2015, set aside the judgment of the reference court and remanded the matter back to the reference court in order to enable the claimant to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the proximity of the land acquired with that of the land covered under Ext.A1. In pursuance to the remand, the claimant sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection who, by report dated 1.7.2019 reported that the land acquired is lying 800 metres away from the land covered by Ext.A1. Based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the reference court, accepted Ext.A1 as an exemplar and deducted 40% in the market value for ‘A category’ and reduced it by 10% for the property at ‘B category’. Accordingly, the reference court fixed an amount of Rs.88,417/- per cent for the land covered under ‘A category ’ and Rs.74,175/- per cent for the land covered under ‘B category ’., It is against the aforesaid fixation that the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

¶30

Heard Sri. R.T. Pradeep, assisted by Sri. Niranjan, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Sri. T.K. Shajahan, the learned

¶31

LAA No.109 of 2020 5 2025:KER:29098

¶32

Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri.Joseph Antony, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB.

¶33

On consideration of the rival submission raised across the Bar, we find that the appellant is entitled to succeed on two grounds. The land acquisition officer had categorised the entire extent of 118.5 Ares of land into ‘category A’ and ‘category B’. It has come out in evidence that the property of the appellant was lying abutting the by-road. The land acquisition officer could not have categorized the property by artificially splitting the property into two and thereby creating an artificial bifurcation of the land and categorising 59.25 Ares having road frontage and the property lying behind that having and extent of 59.25 Ares without road frontage. Therefore, we find that the categorisation being uncalled for and the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation for the entire extent of 118.5 Ares of land.

¶34

As regards the land value fixed by the reference court, we find that the Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A. No.117 of 2015 had remanded the matter back for fresh consideration especially on the ground that the proximity of the land acquired and the land covered by Ext.A1 was not established by the claimant. Once the claimant had proved the proximity of the land acquired with that of Ext.A1 through the Advocate Commissioner and the report of the Advocate Commissioner specifically found that the distance between the land acquired and Ext.A1 is 800 metres, we find that the reference court was

¶35

LAA No.109 of 2020 6 2025:KER:29098

¶36

not justified in applying a reduction of 40% which is certainly on a higher side. In the interest of justice, we feel that the deduction of 30% would have been sufficient to protect the interest of the appellant/claimant.

¶37

As an upshot of these discussions, we find that the appellant is entitled to succeed. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the reference court in L.A.R. No.7 of 2009 is modified and we fix the market value of the land in question by deducting 30% from the land value of Ext.A1 and thus we fix the market value at Rs.1,03,154/- per cent. We make it clear that the appellant/claimant is entitled for the aforesaid market value for the entire 118.50 Ares of land. The appellant will also be entitled to get all statutory benefits including proportionate costs flowing out of the aforesaid fixation.

¶38

Sd/ -

¶39

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

Sd/EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶41

NS

Darvin v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darvin v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasir Ahammed M.C, Vs the Special Tahsildar

Muhammed Shafi. E Vs Amina. S

Niba Farhath Vs Nil

Nusaiba a M Vs Muhammed Faizal.K.M

Dhanya, Vs Nishadh B

Sasi v Vs Nadiya