2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 74 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.7.2015 IN LAR NO.101 OF 2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: 1 K.RAVEEMDRANATHAN NAIR (DIED) S/O.P.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, NANI NIVAS, KOCHUPLAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, MANAGING TRUSTEE, P.KRISHNA PILLAI MEMORIAL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, KOCHUPILAMMOODU, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.K.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS, PAYIGALIL VEEDU, KOZHIKODE, KATTADI P.O. POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM. ADDL.A2 PRATHAP R. NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, AVANTI, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOCHUPLAMOODU, KOLLAM-691001. ADDL.A3 PREETHA S, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, ‘THE MANOR’, H & C COMPOUND, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-691001. ADDL.A4 PRAKASH NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, NANI NIVAS, KOCHUPLAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691001. 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 2 * THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 22.12.2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN LAA 74/2016. BY ADV SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 009. 2 CORPORATION OF KOLLAM KOLLAM - 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. OTHER PRESENT: R2 BY ADV S SREEKUMAR KOLLAM, R1 BY SRI.T.K SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..243/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 243 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2015 IN LAR NO.101 OF 2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT: KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001. BY ADV SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC, KOLLAM CORPORATION RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT: 1 K.RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR (DIED) NANI NIVAS, KOCHUPILAMMODDU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, MANAGING TRUSTEE, P.KRISHNA PILLAI MEMORIAL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, KOCHUPILAMMODDU, KOLLAM. 2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691001. 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 4 *ADDL.R3 PRATHAP R. NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, AVANTI, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOCHUPLAMOODU, KOLLAM-691001. *ADDL.R4 PREETHA S, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, ‘THE MANOR’, H & C COMPOUND, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-691001. *ADDL.R5 PRAKASH NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, NANI NIVAS, KOCHUPLAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691001. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2.4.2025 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN LAA NO.243/2016 ADDL.R3 TO R5 BY ADV SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR R2 BY ADV.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 02.04.2025, ALONG WITH LA.App..74/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 5 DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & EASWARAN S., J. ------------------------------- LA.App. Nos.74/2016 & 243/2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 J U D G M E N T Easwaran S., J. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2015 in L.A.R No.101/2003 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: The acquisition in question relates to 45.93 Ares of property comprised in re-survey Nos.42/109 and 43/101 of Kollam East Village in Kollam Taluk for the purpose of Kollam Corporation. Notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1999. The award was passed on 11.2.2003. The land acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs.1,40,617.80 per Are. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act and the reference was answered on 3.1.2009 enhancing the compensation. Later, the State preferred appeal before this Court as L.A.App.No.1537/2009 and by judgment 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 6 dated 23.12.2009, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the matter was remanded back for impleading the requisitioning authority and to proceed in accordance with law. After impleading the requisitioning authority, the reference court again by judgment and decree dated 6.4.2010 answered the reference and enhanced the compensation @ Rs.1,96,100/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the requisitioning authority filed L.A.App. No.5/2011 before this Court. By judgment dated 21.2.2012, a Division Bench of this Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the matter back with opportunity to the requisitioning authority to produce the five documents, which were produced before this Court in the appeal. The Sub Court was directed to pass a revised award at the earliest. After the remand, the reference court, based on the findings rendered by this Court in L.A.App. No.5/2011, refixed the market value at Rs.1,76,490/- per cent, by deducting 10% from Rs.1,96,100/-. Aggrieved by this reduction in the market value, the claimant is in appeal before us in L.A.App.No.74/2016, while questioning the fixation of the market value, the requisitioning authority is before us in L.A.App. No.243/2016. 3. Heard Sri.R.Sathish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant in L.A.App.No.74/2016, Sri.R.Sreekumar 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 7 Kollam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the requisitioning authority, in L.A.App.No.243/2016 and Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar, we are of the considered view that the reference court went wrong in reducing the amount already fixed by it in the earlier proceedings. The reference court on the basis of the material evidence proceeded to appreciate the same and fixed the market value at Rs.1,96,100/- per cent. No doubt, the requisitioning authority questioned the same before this Court in L.A.App.No.5/2011. One of the prime reason which weighed the minds of the Division Bench while setting aside the earlier judgment of the reference court was the lack of opportunity to the requisitioning authority to adduce evidence to prove that the amount fixed by the reference court is on a higher side. Although this Court found that the market value arrived at by the reference court with reference to Ext.A4 and the oral testimony of AW3 was slightly higher than the correct market value of comparable property at the relevant time, the Division Bench did not pronounce its views finally in the appeal. It was made clear that the issues were not decided in the appeal finally. It was in the above circumstances, the requisitioning authority was granted permission to produce additional evidence to 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 8 prove their claim. 5. On remand, when the reference court was called upon to appreciate the additional materials thus produced on behalf of the requisitioning authority, the reference court instead of appreciating the same, blindly followed the directions contained in the judgment in L.A.App. No.5/2011 and deducted 10% from the market value fixed in the earlier round of litigation. According to us, this view cannot be subscribed by us under any circumstances. Resultantly, although the inevitable consequences would be that the matter should regain attention of the reference court once again, we find that the notification is issued in the year 1999 and nearly 26 years have been passed since the proceedings for acquisition started, and still, the claimant(s) are not in a position to receive just and equitable compensation. When we analyse the predicament of the claimant(s), we are left to ponder over whether we should entertain the challenge by the requisitioning authority contending that the amount fixed by the reference court is on a higher side. We feel that no substantial evidence has been adduced by the requisitioning authority to prove that even the amount fixed by the reference court at Rs.1,76,940/- is on a higher side. 6. On contrary, we find that the reference court was not justified in reducing 10% from Rs,1,96,100/-, which was correctly 2025:KER:31126 LA.App. Nos.74/2016, 243/2016 9 arrived at by the reference court in the earlier proceedings. Even on remand, we find that the opposing parties failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove their claim thereby entitling the claimants to have the market value fixed at Rs.1,96,100/- per cent itself. We have adopted the aforesaid recourse, especially since the judgment of the Division Bench in L.A.App.No.5/2011 did not finally pronounce upon the value of the property. 7. As an upshot of these discussions, we find that the challenge raised by the requisitioning authority to the value fixed by the reference court has to fail and consequently, the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the market value has to be allowed. Accordingly, L.A.App.No.243/2016 is dismissed and L.A.App. No.74/2016 is allowed. The market value of the land acquired is re- fixed at Rs.1,96,100/- per cent. The claimants will also be entitled to all statutory benefits and proportionate costs in the appeal. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE jg