Dismissed¶43

The State of Kerala v. the Secretary

Kerala HC2 Apr 2025LA.App./168/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation enhancement appeal by State dismissed; Section 18 reference under Land Acquisition Act 1894; market value fixed on post-notification sale deed Ext.A1 (Sale Deed No.2075/12 dated 29.06.2012) with 25% deduction at Rs.52,53,501/- per Are for 3.95 Ares; Land Acquisition Officer's Ext.B1-based valuation held unsustainable; acquisition for Ponnurunni Railway Over Bridge, Ponnurunni/Vyttila, Ernakulam; classification dry land versus wet reclaimed dry land; 30% structural enhancement per PWD rates; LAR No.22 of 2013, III Additional Sub Court Ernakulam, judgment dated 07.11.2016; neutral citation 2025:KER:28624.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant State; the enhancement of land value to Rs.52,53,501/- per Are and the 30% structural enhancement granted by the Reference Court stand; no order as to costs.

The State of Kerala Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant State; the enhancement of land value to Rs.52,53,501/- per Are and the 30% structural enhancement granted by the Reference Court stand; no order as to costs.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired land by relying on a post-notification document (Ext.A1) instead of the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The course of action adopted by the Reference Court in relying on Ext.A1 (post-notification sale deed) with a 25% deduction to arrive at Rs.52,53,501/- per Are cannot be said to be unreasonable.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Land Acquisition Officer could not justify the land value fixed on the basis of Ext.B1; going by Ext.B1 the value was Rs.34,60,106/- per Are after deducting Rs.3,00,000/- towards the building, yet the Officer reduced it still further to Rs.30,90,295/- per Are, which is the primary reason the Reference Court chose to rely on Ext.A1.

¶40

Key takeaways

The Reference Court granted only 30% enhancement for the value of the structures, going by the rates prescribed by the PWD; therefore there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala (Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S., JJ.; judgment by Easwaran S., J.) dismisses the State's Land Acquisition Appeal (LAA No.168 of 2019) against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2016 in LAR No.22 of 2013 of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The acquired property was 3.95 Ares belonging to the claimant (Sanmarga Pradeepam Yogam), acquired for construction of the Ponnurunni Railway Over Bridge pursuant to a Section 4(1) notification dated 26.02.2011 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upholding the reference under Section 18, the Court held that the Reference Court's reliance on Ext.A1, a post-notification sale deed (Sale Deed No.2075/12 dated 29.06.2012), with a 25% deduction, yielding Rs.52,53,501/- per Are for the entire extent treated as dry land, was perfectly justified, since the Land Acquisition Officer could not justify his Ext.B1-based valuation and had arbitrarily reduced the per-Are value to Rs.30,90,295/-. The Court also found no reason to interfere with the 30% enhancement granted to the structural value computed on PWD rates. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:KER:28624

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶7

LA.APP. NO. 168 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2016 IN

¶9

LAR NO.22 OF 2013 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶10

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONENT IN LAR:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
KOCHI CORPORATION

¶12

SPL GP - N SUDHADEVI

¶13

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR:

¶14

1THE SECRETARY
SANMARGA PRADEEPAM YOGAM,PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA,
REPRESENTED BY PRESENT SECRETARY MRIDULAN,
S/O.M.K.ASOKAN, SRISHAILAM, VERUMPADATH VEEDU,
THYKOODAM, 682019

¶15

2 THE SECRETARY KOCHI CORPORATION-682011

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN
SRI.M.N.MANMADAN
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
SMT.P.SEENA
C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶18

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

LAA No.168/2019

¶20

¶21

2025:KER:28624

¶22

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & EASWARAN S., JJ. --------------------------------------------------------LAA No.168 of 2019

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------

¶24

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2025

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Easwaran S., J.

¶27

The appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and decree in LAR No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam.

¶28

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

¶29

An extent of 3.95 Ares of land belonging to the respondent – claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ponnurunni Railway Over Bridge. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 26.02.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land into two categories, 2 Ares of land comprising in Sy.No.558/2-6 and Sy.No.557/1-3 as dry land and 1.95 Ares of land in Sy.No.558/1-5 as wet reclaimed dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.30,90,295/- per are for the dry land and Rs.29,33,824/per Are for the wet reclaimed dry land. The building in the property was valued at Rs.6,66,846/-. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed

¶30

LAA No.168/2019

¶31

¶32

2025:KER:28624

¶33

by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In support of the claim, the claimant produced Ext.A1 certified copy of the Sale Deed No.2075/12 dated 29.06.2012 and also took out an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. Exts.B1 to B3 were produced on behalf of the State. The claimant was examined as AW1 and the Commissioner was examined as CW1. The respondent examined RW1 in support of their contentions. The Reference Court, on appreciation of evidence, increased the land value to Rs.52,53,501/- per Are by categorising the entire extent of 3.95 Ares as a dry land and granted 30% enhancement to the structural value by relying on Ext.A1 document and deducting 25% of the value therein.

¶34

The State, in this appeal, contends that the land value fixed by the Reference Court relying upon a post notification document is improper.

¶35

Heard, Smt.Sudha Devi – learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State and Sri.A.Balagopalan – learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant.

¶36

On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we find that the course of action adopted by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. In evidence, it has come out that the Land Acquisition Officer could not justify the fixation of

¶37

LAA No.168/2019

¶38

¶39

2025:KER:28624

¶40

the land value based on Ext.B1. Going by Ext.B1, the total value reflected therein is Rs.37,60,106/- per Are and deducting Rs.3,00,000/- towards value of the building, the amount fixed per Are is Rs.34,60,106/- . However, the Land Acquisition Officer reduced the land value still further and fixed it as Rs.30,90,295/- per Are. This is the primary reason why the Reference Court chose to rely on Ext.A1 and deducted 25% from the land value and arrived at Rs.52,53,501/-.

¶41

On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances

¶42

of this case, we are of the view that the recourse adopted by the Reference Court is perfectly justified. As regards the value of the building, we find that the Reference Court has granted only 30% of the enhancement for the value of the structures, going by the rates prescribed by the PWD. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court.

¶43

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶47

ACR

The State of Kerala v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. the Secretary

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

State of Kerala Vs Oberon Edifices and Estates Pvt. .Ltd

Salitha Susan Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M/S Cochin Engineering Constructions, Vs the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax

Hafsathabi M K, Vs Executive Engineer

Dr. P.N. Rajamony Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Cadburys India Ltd.