Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12830
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
BUSHARA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) 3654/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN, K.BINCYMOL
For the Respondents: SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
Proper compensation determination must consider similar land classification in land acquisition cases under relevant statutory provisions.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P3 and claims entitlement to compensation pursuant to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The court concludes that the draft award submitted based on LAR No.270/2015 should be reconsidered in light of similarities with the petitioner's land.. The main issue framed was whether the petitioner's land can receive compensation on par with similar land. The court reasoned that based on admitted facts, the petitioner is entitled to a redetermination. The final outcome is that Ext.P3 is set aside, and the District Collector is directed to reconsider the draft award.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court determines the proper basis for compensation based on similar land references. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the land acquired to be redetermined as per Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in tune with Ext.P2 judgment and as per the value fixed in LAR No.323/2015 and LAR No.394/2015 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode.
2. A statement has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the nature of the land involved in LAR No.323/2015 and LAR No.394/2015 is different from that of the petitioner's land. The petitioner's land is a wet land. Admittedly, the judgment referred to as the judgment in LAR No.323/2015 is a combined judgment in several land acquisition references in which there were wet lands as well as lands belonging to other categories. LAR.No.270/2015 which is one of the cases which was disposed of in the common judgment, refers to wet land. This fact is also admitted in the statement. It is in these circumstances, that the draft award was submitted based on the judgment in LAR.No.270/2015 before the District Collector. I do not find any reason for rejecting the said draft award for the reason that the land involved is different from the land involved in LAR.No.323/2015. The essence of the judgment had to be looked into and it is clear from the judgment itself that the judgment covers the properties which are wet land.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of. Ext.P3 is set aside. There will be a direction to the District Collector to reconsider the draft award on the basis of the judgment in LAR.No.270/2015 which also is part of the common judgment in LAR.No.323/2015 and approve the draft award if the land acquired from the petitioner is similar to the land in LAR.No.270/2015 regarding which there is already an admission contained in the statement filed before this Court. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
