Partly allowed¶40

State of Kerala v. Mathew Joseph

Kerala HC25 Mar 2025LA.App./3/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court DB, LA.APP. No.3 of 2016, decided 25.03.2025 (2025:KER:25445); land acquisition compensation - Kaduthuruthy bypass widening; Section 4(1) Notification 23.04.2010; Section 18 reference; LAR 17/2014 Principal Sub Court Kottayam; reclassification of land from Category E to Category A upheld; land value scaled down per LA.App. No.521 of 2015 and connected cases (DB judgment 11.10.2023) to Rs.6,59,010/- per Are; statutory benefits reworked; State appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

State's appeal partly allowed: Reference Court's reclassification of the land to Category A upheld, but land value scaled down from Rs.7,41,300/- to Rs.6,59,010/- per Are in terms of LA.App. No.521 of 2015 and connected cases; statutory benefits to be reworked accordingly. ¶40

State of Kerala Vs Mathew Joseph — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the land value fixed by the Reference Court requires interference/scale-down in terms of the Division Bench judgment in LA.App. No.521 of 2015 and connected cases. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The judgment of the Coordinate Bench in LA.Appeal No.521 of 2015 and connected cases squarely applies to the facts of the present case; the claimants' contention that it is per incuriam is thereby rejected.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

There is no merit in the State's contention that the Reference Court erred in reclassifying the land from Category E to Category A; the Reference Court's finding (supported by the title deed, commissioner's report and claimant's evidence that the property is dry land with access to the PWD road/national highway) is upheld.

¶38

Key takeaways

The land value is refixed at Rs.6,59,010/- per Are (Category A) in terms of the Division Bench judgment in LA.Appeal No.521 of 2015 and connected cases.ratio¶38
Statutory benefits due to the claimants shall be reworked in terms of the land value refixed by this Court.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Easwaran S., J.) of the High Court of Kerala partly allows the State's land acquisition appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 in LAR No.17 of 2014 (Principal Sub Court, Kottayam), concerning 0.48 Ares acquired for the widening of Kaduthuruthy bypass under Section 4(1) Notification dated 23.04.2010. The Reference Court had reclassified the land from Category E to Category A and fixed the value at Rs.7,41,300/- per Are. Holding that the Division Bench judgment dated 11.10.2023 in LA.App. No.521 of 2015 and connected cases squarely applies, and upholding the reclassification (the title deed, commissioner's report and claimant's evidence showed dry land adjacent to the PWD road/national highway), the Court refixed the land value at Rs.6,59,010/- per Are and directed that statutory benefits due to the claimants be reworked in terms of the refixed value.

¶1

LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2016 1 2025:KER:25445

¶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

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2016

¶9

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2015 IN LAR NO.17 OF 2014
OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN LAR:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM.

¶13

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) GENERAL KOTTAYAM.

¶14

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROAD DIVISION,KOTTAYAM.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN

¶16

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN LAR:

¶17

1 MATHEW JOSEPH VARAPADAVIL,PAZHATHURUTHU KARA,KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, PIN-686604.

¶18

2 PEARLY MATHEW W/O.MATHEW JOSEPH,VARAPADAVIL,PAZHATHURUTHU KARA,KADUTHURUTHY.P.O,PIN-686604.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶20

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2016 2 2025:KER:25445

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Easwaran S., J.

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and decree in LAR No.17 of 2014 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. The acquisition in the present case relates to the widening of Kaduthuruthy bypass. An extent of 0.48 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.591/1-1 of Kaduthuruthy Village in Vaikom Taluk was acquired under Section 4(1) Notification issued on 23.04.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land under E category and awarded a sum of Rs.1,747/- per Are. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court, on finding that going by the title deed of the claimants, the land is categorised as dry land, changed the category from E to Category No.A and fixed the land value at Rs.7,41,300/- per Are.

¶25

Heard Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant State and Sri. Mthew John, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶26

LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:25445

¶27

the claimants.

¶28

The learned Senior Government Pleader placed before us the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.App. No.521 of 2015 and connected cases, wherein the Division Bench had, by judgment dated 11.10.2023, scale-down the land value fixed by the Reference Court as follows:

¶29

Category	Value per Are
A	Rs.6,59,010/-
B	Rs.5,99,100/-
C	Rs.5,39,190/-
D	Rs.4,49,325/-

¶30

The learned Government Pleader further contended that the Reference Court could not have changed the category of the land in question from Category E to that of Category A, and therefore, the same also requires interference.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶32

LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:25445

¶33

claimants submitted that the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is impermissible in law. To that extent, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench has to be construed as the perincuriam.

¶34

We have considered the rival submissions made across the bar and have perused the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in LA.Appeal No.521 of 2015 and connected cases, and are of the view that the same squarely applies to the facts of the present case. As regards the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Reference Court could not have reclassified the land under Category A, we find that the Reference Court, in paragraph 71 of the judgment, has clearly found that the title document of the claimants shows that the property in question is a dry land. The findings rendered by the Reference Court in paragraph 71 is extracted hereunder:

¶35

“71. As per Ext.R7 notes of award the property acquired in LAR 17/2014 is a wet land lying at a distance of 250 meters away from Ettumanoor-Ernakulam road at Kaduthuruthy and is having no road access. This property has been categorised under category No.E stating that it is a

¶36

LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:25445

¶37

wet land having no road access. But the claimant would contend that it is a dry land lying adjacent to the Kottayam-Ernakulam National Highway and hence the property ought to have been included in category No.A. The commissioner has reported in page No.6 of Ext.CI report that the acquired property in LAR 17/14 is a dry land lying adjacent to the PWD road and this property was having direct access from PWD road. The claimant had been conducting a workshop in his property including the acquired property. The claimant has produced Ext.A10, his title document to prove that this property is a dry land lying adjacent to the PWD road. AW2, the claimant in LAR 17/2014 deposed that the acquired property is lying adjacent to the national highway and is a dry land and he is conducting a workshop in the said property. According to him, the property was to be included in A category. The report of the commissioner also would go to show that the property in LAR 17/2014 is lying adjacent to the PWD road. Considering these evidence before the court I hold that the catgorisation of this property by the Land Acquisition Officer as wet land is not correct. He had to include the property under category A and ought to have been given the land value considering the same as category A.”

¶38

Therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in the contention raised by the State that the reclassification of the land from Category E to that of Category A done by the Reference Court is wrong. Therefore, we uphold the said finding and refix the land value in terms of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in LA.Appeal No.521 of 2015 and connected cases as

¶39