SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ker) 871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
Krishna Kumar S/o Chandra Sekharan Nair – Appellant
Versus
The District Bar Association, Pathanamthitta – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1318, 1560 of 2020
Decided On : 11-12-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. K. Jagadeesh, Sri. G. Shrikumar, Smt. V. Renju.
For the Respondents: Sri. V. Philip Mathew, Sri. Aravindkumar Babu.

Important points:
There was no justification for the High Court to have compelled the Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquired land. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by a judicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority by application of objective criteria.

Headnote:

The Kerala Stamp Act, 1959;; The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 26- Any person, who feels aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference Court can avail remedy either by filing an application Under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or by filing an appeal Under Section 54 thereof.

Statement of facts:

Both the writ appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 31579 of 2019. They are the land owners, whose land have been identified for establishing the District Court Complex in Pathanamthitta District. On account of the considerable delay in finalising the proceedings for land acquisition, the appellants have approached the writ court, solely on the ground, as to how the quantum of compensation has to be determined. The appellants have also expressed their willingness for a negotiated purchase by the Government

Finding of the court:

The Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, the rules framed thereunder and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013-The writ court has erred in issuing the directions in the impugned judgment, confining the powers of the District Collector, only to the fixation of fair value of the property and not the market value of the property, to be determined as per Section 26 of the Act, 2013 and, therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment requires interference.

Result: Writ appeals are allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeals are filed challenging the common judgment in W.P. (C) Nos. 31579 of 2019 and 8139 of 2020 dated 18.08.2020, by which a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petitions holding thus:

    “9. In the light of the revised fixation, it is appropriate to direct the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to forward the revised proposal to the State Government forthwith to initiate action for acquiring the land. The revised proposal shall be acted upon by the Government for initiating land acquisition proceedings. The District Judge, Pathanamthitta, is also directed to make necessary requests based on this direction before the District Collector to initiate action.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 31579/2019, Sri. V. Sethunath submits that this valuation is not proper and the land was converted long before the Act 28/2008 came into force. Therefore, the valuation as above does not reflect the actual market value. It is to be noted that what should be the potential market value can be decided by the competent authority if the land owners are not satisfied with the award to be passed in the land acquisition proceedings. As of now, based on the relevant records, the land acquisition officer can only determine the market value in accordance with the fair value as referred above. Therefore, leaving open the contention of the land owners, these writ petitions are disposed of as above. Needful shall be done by the Principal District Judge as well as the District Collector to forward the proposal to the Government within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the Government shall take appropriate decision thereon within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the above said proposal.”

2. Since the subject matter involved in these two appeals is common, the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Both the writ appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 31579 of 2019. They are the land owners, whose land have been identified for establishing the District Court Complex in Pathanamthitta District. On account of the considerable delay in finalising the proceedings for land acquisition, the appellants have approached the writ court, solely on the ground, as to how the quantum of compensation has to be determined. The appellants have also expressed their willingness for a negotiated purchase by the Government.

4. W.P. (C) No. 31579 of 2019 has been filed for the following reliefs:

    “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents, to expedite the acquisition proceedings as per Exhibits-P2 to P16.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents not to change the properties sought to be acquired and earmarked for the last 10 years.

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, to pay compensation of land value along with 12% interest for prohibiting all sort of activities in the land described in Exhibit-P1, for the last ten years.

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents, to pay 12% interest for the last ten years, in the event of acquisition of the lands.”

5. Similarly, W.P. (C) No. 8139 of 2020 has been filed for the following reliefs:

    “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 6 and 9 to 12 to take effective steps to complete the acquisition of 6 Acres of land situated (242.91 Ares) in Survey Nos. 102/10, 102/11, 102/12, 110/01, 110/02, 110/03AB, 110/04, 110/05, 110/6-1, 142/6A, 142/6B, 142/17A, 142/7B of Pathanamthitta Village, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District for the construction of Court complex in Pathanamthitta a

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top