Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S., JJ.
The State Of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Sarasamma - Respondents
LA.APP. No. 558 of 2022
Decided on : 12-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. J.G.SYAMNATH FOR R1 & R2 SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, SC, KSIDC, FOR R3
The court established that uniform compensation must be awarded for land acquired under different acts for the same purpose, to ensure equality and uphold rights to just compensation.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 26 - Dispute over compensation awarded by land acquisition officer and reference court - Differentiation in compensation for land acquired under different acts is impermissible - Land value fixed at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are for all landowners is justifiable and necessary for parity and fair compensation. (Paras 4, 26, 44)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 and 300A - Landowners have a constitutional right to fair compensation - Treating landowners differently under two acts for the same acquisition process violates the equality before law principle. (Paras 14, 42)
Facts of the case:
The State of Kerala challenges the land value fixed for land acquired for establishing a Life Science Park, alleging it excessive, while claimants assert it is inadequate. The dispute surrounds compensation fixed using varying criteria under two different Acts for the same land acquisition notification.
Findings of Court:
The reference court is upheld in fixing uniform compensation at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are, rejecting the belting system as improper and unsustainable, ensuring equal treatment and preventing discrimination among landowners covered by the same acquisition notification.
Issues: The court addressed whether it was permissible to apply different compensation criteria for the same land based on differing legislative frameworks and the implications under constitutional provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that, to avoid discrimination and uphold constitutional rights, a single, justifiable land value must apply to all affected parties regardless of the governing statute under which compensation is sought, reaffirming the need for parity in compensation.
Result: Appeals by the State and requisitioning authority dismissed; the land value for all claimants fixed at Rs.5,47,264/- per Are with costs awarded to the claimants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unique compensation challenges in land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. argument against reliance on specific sale deeds. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. counterarguments on belting system and valuation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. assessment of market value and belting system impact. (Para 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 5. court's reflection on belting system's permissibility. (Para 14 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. impact of division bench's judgment on current proceedings. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. determining market value consistency across claims. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. court's rationale to ensure equity among claimants. (Para 29 , 30 , 32) |
| 9. processes governing order-xli rule-33 applicability. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. state's defense against valuation rejection. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. court's affirmation against state differentiation in awards. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. upheld compensation value and dismissal of appeals. (Para 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
Easwaran S., J.
These appeals have presented before us certain unique facts.
On the one hand, the State as well as the requisitioning authority contend that the amount of compensation granted by the reference court is on the higher side, whereas on the other hand, the claimants contend that the amount fixed by the land acquisition officer is dismally low and it was therefore that the reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was sought and the same was answered in their favour. The facts are unique in the sense that in respect of a single cause for land acquisition covered by one notification, land owners are differentiated on two different criteria; (a) the award passed under the erstwhile LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 and (b) the award passed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Act 30 of 2013]. Different market values are fixed for the same category of lands acquired for the very same purpose albeit under two different enactments.
Facts of the case
2. A total extent of 105.27 hectares of land was sought to be acquired for establishment of a “Life Science Park” on request of the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation ('KSIDC', for short). Section 4(1) notification was published on 14.10.2008 and award was passed on 21.11.2011. Possession was taken on 16.01.2012. The land acquisition officer categorised the land into six categories as follows:
| Category | Nature |
| 1 | Dry land on the side of National Highway |
| 2 | Dry Land with PWD road |
| 3 | Dry Land with Panchayat road |
| 4 | Dry land with Pathway |
| 5 | Reclaimed land without access |
| 6 | Reclaimed land with access |
The land acquisition officer relied on the basic document, Sale Deed No.2083/2008 dated 15.4.2008. In these appeals, we are concerned with category Nos. 2, 3, and 5. The land value fixed by the land acquisition officer for these categories is Rs.1,88,461/-, Rs.1,38,273/- & Rs.88,149/-, respectively. The reference court relied on sale deed No.925/2008 dated 15.4.2008 and refixed the land value at Rs.3,83,083/- for category No.2 and Rs.3,55,730/- for category No.3. The appeals arising out of the proceedings under the erstwhile LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 are detailed as below:
| Sl No | Appeal by state | Appeal by Requisition Authority | LAR Nos. | Catego ry | Amount fixed by LAO per Are | Amount fixed by Reference Court per Are |
| 1 | LAA No. 558/2022 | Nil | 133/2012 | II | 1,88,461/- | 3,83,084/- |
| 2 | LAA No. 555/2022 | LAA No. 597/2022 & CO No 191/2022 | 128/2012 | V | 88,149/- | 2,73,631.50 |
| 3 | LAA No. 571/2022 | LAA No. 97/2023 | 132/2012 | II | 1,38,273/- | 3,55,730/- |
| 4 | LAA No. 131/2021 | Nil | 139/2012 | III | 1,38,273/- | 3,55,730/- |
| 5 | LAA No. 200/2019 | Nil | 1/2013 | III | 1,38,273/- | 2,16,049/- |
| 6 | LAA No. 98/2019 | Nil | 138/2012 | III | 1,38,273/- | 2,90,123/- |
| 7 | LAA No. 106/2021 | NIL | 134/2012 | III | 1,38,273/- | 2,90,123/- |
3. As stated above, certain tracts of land were not subjected to any proceedings under the erstwhile LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, but award was passed after the promulgation of Act 30 of 2013 on 3.11.2017. The land acquisition officer followed the categorization for the purpose of the
