Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. RAVI, J.
Subaida U. W/o Marcus Iqbal Saddique E. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 35537 of 2024, 203, 4432, 6775 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. LAL K.JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) T.A.LUXY SURESH SUKUMAR KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE ANZIL SALIM SANJAY SELLEN SONIA SHIBU AAMINA RAFEEK
For the Respondent: SRI.R.V. SREEJITH, SC. SRI. K.S. PRENJITH KUMAR. CGC.
IMPORTANT POINT
The Administrator of Lakshadweep has the authority to delegate powers for fixing land value multiplication factors, and setting it at 'one' is justified based on the area's characteristics.
Headnote:
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The notification dated 07.02.2024 fixing the multiplication factor for land value in Lakshadweep as one, is challenged on grounds of authority and compliance with the Act's schedule. The court finds that the Administrator had the authority to delegate powers to the District Collector, and the fixation of the factor as one, is justified based on the characteristics of the area. (Paras 1 , 6 , 8 )
(B) Delegation of Authority - The Administrator's delegation of powers to the District Collector is valid under the Act, allowing for flexibility in determining the multiplication factor. (Paras 4 , 6 )
(C) Multiplication Factor - The court holds that the appropriate Government has discretion to set the multiplication factor between 1 and 2, and the justification for setting it at one, is acceptable given the urban characteristics of Lakshadweep. (Paras 7 , 8 )
Facts of the case:
The writ petitions seek to quash a notification regarding land value multiplication factors in Lakshadweep, arguing lack of authority and improper application of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the notification, affirming the Administrator's authority and the justification for the multiplication factor.
Issues: The main issues were the authority of the Land Acquisition Collector and the appropriateness of the multiplication factor set at one,.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Administrator had the authority to delegate powers and that the discretion to set the multiplication factor is valid if justified.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The prayer in all these writ petitions is to quash the notification dated 07.02.2024 which has been produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 to the extent it notifies the multiplication factor for the purpose of fixing of the land value with respect to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as ‘one’. The grounds on which the order is challenged are: 1) the Land Acquisition Collector does not have Authority to issue such a notification; 2) the notification is not in accordance with the schedule to theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining the source of power to the Land Acquisition Collector to issue the notification and also detailing the manner in which a notification has been issued in accordance with the schedule to the Act.
3. Heard the counsel on both sides.
4. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Lakshadweep area is a rural area and going by the notification dated 09.02.2016, issued by the Central Government the multiplication factor in the case of rural areas is to be ‘two’. The notification dated 09.02.2016 has been produced along with W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 as Ext.P6. It is contended that the appropriate Government in the case of Union Territory of Lakshadweep is the Central Government or at best the Administrator who has been notified to be the appropriate Government by orders issued by the President in exercise of the power under Article 239 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Administrator could not have delegated the power to the District Collector and there could not have been any sub delegation to the Land Acquisition Collector. Going by the notification dated 30.11.2015 produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025, the President has directed that the powers and functions of the appropriate Government under the Act with respect to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep be exercised and discharged by the Administrator. Section 3(e) of the Act defines appropriate Government to mean, in relation to acquisition of land situated in all Union Territory except Puducherry, as the Central Government. The First Schedule to the Act under serial numbers 2 and 3 says that the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas will be 1 to 2 based on the distance of the projects from the urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government and the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of urban areas will be ‘one’. The power is thus available to the appropriate Government to fix the multiplication factor. Ext.P6 produced in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 relates to notification where the appropriate Government is the Central Government and it will not apply to the case of the Union Territory of Lakshaweep, where the appropriate Government is to be the Administrator. A reading of Ext.P5 would show that, it is a notification of the appropriate Government though it is signed by the Land Acquisition Collector. By Ext.P4 produced in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 the Administrator had ordered that the appropriate Government for the entire district shall be the District Collector.
5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Administrator did not have power to delegate the power to the District Collector.
6. The Standing Counsel for the Administrator would submit that the proviso to Section 3(e) says that in respect to the public purpose in a district for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such district shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government. It is hence submitted that the Administrator in his capacity as the appropriate Government has notified the Collector to be the Appropriate Government and the notification is well within the power available to the appropriate Government. I find justification in the
