Dr. P.N. Rajamony Vs State of Kerala

¶1

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018 1 2025:KER:28658

¶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

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

¶8

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2016 IN LAR NO.13
OF 2010 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶10

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶11

DR. P.N. RAJAMONY
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O N.K. KUMARAN, SREEKAILAS, T.C. 30/1724, CHAYAKUDI
ROAD, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -29

¶12

BY ADVS.
SMT.HEMALATHA
SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN
SMT.V.K.ANJU

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 005

¶15

2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNO PARK,KAZHAKKOOTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 582.

¶16

BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T), SC,TECHNOPARK
SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R2

¶17

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:28658

¶18

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN FOR R1

¶19

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:28658

¶21

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶22

&

¶23

EASWARAN S., JJ.

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2025

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Easwaran S., J.

¶28

This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Attingal, in L.A.R No.13 of 2010.

¶29

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as

¶30

follows:

¶31

An extent of 15.10 Ares of property in Survey No.388/12 of Pallipuram Village was acquired for the purpose of Phase IV development of the Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05.12.2006. The award was passed on 11.05.2009. The land was taken possession on 01.07.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.75,824/per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the land under Category No.9 and fixed the land value. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On behalf of the claimant,

¶32

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:28658

¶33

Exts.A1 document was marked Exts.B1 and B2 documents were produced on the side of the respondent State. The Advocate Commissioner was taken out for local inspection and filed a report as Ext.CI . The claimant was examined as AW1, and in addition to the claim for enhancement, the claimant also questioned the categorisation by the Land Acquisition Officer by categorising the property under Category No.9. According to the claimant, the property ought to have been categorised under Category No.3, which is the land adjacent to the land abutting the national high way. In support of the claim for change of the category, the claimant relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Ext.B2 Group Sketch prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of acquisition. The Reference Court, relying upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner, rejected the claim for changing the category and fixed the category, and confirmed the categorisation done by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, insofar as the enhancement of the market value is concerned, the Reference Court enhanced the amount to Rs.1,33,970/-. Thus, the claimant is before us in this appeal.

¶34

Heard Smt.Hemalatha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State, and Smt.K.V.Reshmi, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Requisition Authority.

¶35

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:28658

¶36

On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to succeed for following reasons. Pertinently, it must be noted that the claim for a change in the category was not solely based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. We find that it was the solemn duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to have classified the property correctly based on its lie and nature. We cannot brush aside the contention of the appellant that even going by Ext B2 group sketch prepared by the Land Acquisition officer, the category of the land would be Category No.3 instead of 9. When the lie of the property, as revealed from the group sketch Ext.B2, is examined, it becomes explicitly clear that the property in Sy.No.388/12 is situated adjacent to the property in Sy No. 388/12 which is abutting the national highway. From the note to award we find that the land acquisition officer has himself classified the property lying adjacent to the property abutting national highway under Category No.3. Therefore we find that the property was wrongly classified by the Land Acquisition Officer under Category No.9 instead of Category No.3.

¶37

Once the land in question is reclassified under Category No.3, what should be the land value to be fixed. We further notice that the Land Acquisition officer had fixed Rs 99,000 per Are for the value lying in

¶38

LA.APP. NO. 284 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:28658

¶39

Category No.3 . On reference by the respective claimant under Category No.3, the reference court by Judgment in LAR 26 of 2011 and 3 of 2011 dated 12-12-2014 granted 100% enhancement to the land value. Thus applying the above formula, we find the appellant is entitled to have the land value fixed at 1,98,000 /- Are.

¶40

Accordingly, we allow this appeal and modify the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in L.A.R.No.13 of 2010 and refix the category of the land of the appellant as Category No.3, and accordingly, fix the market value at Rs.1,98,000/- per are. The claimant will be entitled to all statutory benefits and proportionate costs in the appeal. While calculating the interest for the compensation to be awarded to the appellant, the appellant will not be entitled to interest for a period of 689 days days, which is the delay in presenting the appeal before this Court.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶46

mns

Dr. P.N. Rajamony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. P.N. Rajamony v. State of Kerala

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

The State of Kerala Vs the Secretary

Hafsathabi M K, Vs Executive Engineer

The State of Kerala Vs Cadburys India Ltd.