Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M. Manoj, J.
Ravikumar Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Chief Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 21961 OF 2019
Decided On : 20-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Shri.T.R.S.Kumar, Smt.Deena Joseph, Sri.K.Rajan (Muhamma), Sri.P.B.Pradeep, Sri.Swathy S Anil
For the Respondent: Advs. Sri.Y.Jafarkhan,Government Pleader Sri.D.G.Vipin, Standing Counsel,
If land acquisition proceedings under an obsolete framework fail to produce an award before the implementation of a new statute, compensation must be determined by the new law. Additionally, ownership rights effectively cease upon possession, invalidating any subsequent attempts at voluntary title transfer.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Determination of compensation - Where an award was not passed pursuant to the repealed legislative framework prior to the commencement of the new Act, the proceedings must adhere to the compensation mandates of the latter - Proceedings initiated under the old Act do not lapse, but compensation determination must reflect contemporary statutory standards. (Paras 41-43)
(B) Transfer of Property - Legal status of landowner post-acquisition - Once physical possession of property is surrendered, the erstwhile owner is divested of the capacity to execute standard civil sale deeds - Any such transactional document executed post-possession, under the guise of negotiated purchase, is legally unsustainable and void ab initio. (Paras 50-52)
(C) Eminent Domain - Allegations of fraud - Exercise of power of eminent domain constitutes fraud only where there is misuse of statutory authority for extraneous purposes, colorable exercises, or deliberate subversion of procedures, rather than mere procedural delays. (Paras 54-57)
Facts of the case:
Corporate entities held land acquired for a public project. Proceedings were initiated under the old acquisition framework. Although physical possession was surrendered, final awards were passed well after the new legislative act came into force. Owners were induced to sign sale deeds to secure withheld compensation, which they later challenged as procedurally invalid and coercive.
Findings of Court:
The court held that awards passed after the commencement of the new act are not legally sustainable. Agreements signed after the surrender of possession are void because the owner no longer possesses the legal capacity to alienate the property that has effectively transitioned for public use. The compensation must be re-determined under the current governing statute.
Issues: 1. Sustainability of awards passed under the old Act post-transition to the new Act. 2. Validity of negotiated agreements and subsequent sale deeds executed after possession was surrendered. 3. Whether the conduct of the authorities constituted a fraud on the power of eminent domain.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an award is not passed by the cut-off date of the new act, the determination of compensation must follow the new provisions. Furthermore, once an owner surrenders possession, they cease to have the legal competence to execute a valid sale deed, rendering such transfers void.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; impugned awards and sale deeds set aside; authorities directed to re-determine compensation under the new Act within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the property acquisition and the compensation dispute under the new act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. applicability of section 24 of the larr act, 2013, to pending acquisition proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. validity of negotiated purchases under the land acquisition (kerala) rules, 1990. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 4. awards passed after january 1, 2014, must follow larr act, 2013 provisions. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 5. mortgaged property remains alienable but requires stakeholder protection. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 6. post-possession, landowners lack the capacity to execute valid sale deeds. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 7. fraud on the power of eminent domain requires bad faith, not just procedure delays. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 8. court order to redetermine compensation under the larr act, 2013. (Para 58) |
JUDGMENT :
P.M. Manoj, J.
The writ petition is preferred by two firms owned by one Ravikumar, whose properties were acquired for a public purpose pursuant to a notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the LA Act’). However, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘LAAR Act, 2013’) came into force on 01.01.2024. In this regard, 50% of the compensation had already been paid prior to 01.01.2014, while the remaining compensation was paid only in the year 2018. According to the petitioner, he was compelled to execute agreements for sale in favour of the 5th respondent Corporation, which, it is alleged, amounts to a fraud on the power of eminent domain, since neither the Constitution of India nor the special statute governing the acquisition provides for sale or negotiated purchase of property under acquisition.
2. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P14 to P24 awards and to direct the respondents to redetermine the compensation in accordance with LARR Act, 2013. The petitioner also seeks to quash Exts.P38 and P39 on the ground that the said documents are in contravention of the LARR Act, 2013. Further, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Exts.P38 and P39 sale deeds were executed with the intention of curtailing just and fair compensation payable under the LARR Act, 2013, and are therefore null and void and violative of Articles 14, 21, 38, 39(a), and 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are private limited companies represented by their Managing Director, who is a native of Pondicherry and, therefore, is not conversant with reading and writing Malayalam. The petitioners were the absolute owners and title holders in possession of 2.232 acres of land situated in Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. The property lies as a single compact plot on the eastern side of M.G. Road, Ernakulam, having a frontage of 25 meters to M.G. Road, and is classified as dry land.
4. The petitioners contend that the subject properties are situated in a prime location in the State, as they lie on both sides of M.G. Road and possess significant commercial value. The high commercial importance of the properties was expressly recognised by this Court in its judgment dated 13.03.2013 in W.P.(C) No.30355 of 2012.
5. The petitioners further contend that the market value of properties on both sides of M.G. Road ranges between Rs.62 lakh and Rs.65 lakh per cent. In support of this, it is stated that a property in close proximity to the petitioners' land was purchased for Rs.65 lakh per cent in 2014. Similarly, a Mumbai-based company acquired a property situated 450 meters away for Rs.28 lakh per cent as far back as 1996. Furthermore, the petitioners point to a 10-cent plot on the northern side of S.A. Road, Ernakulam, which was sold in 2010 for Rs.35 lak
