Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
THOMAS JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
LA.App. 46/2015
M.SANTHY, ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
The ownership of subsoil minerals follows land ownership unless legally deprived, but claims for silica sand must be substantiated with reliable evidence.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23 and 24 - Land acquisition for industrial growth centre - Claimant challenged categorization of land and compensation for silica sand - Reference court categorized land as Category No.3 and awarded compensation of Rs.17,297/- per Are, rejecting claims for silica sand - Court found categorization valid and compensation adequate. (Paras 5, 10, 12, 15)
(B) Expert Evidence - The court ruled that evidence from an expert not appointed by the court cannot be relied upon, affirming the principle that private expert opinions are inadmissible unless obtained through proper legal channels. (Paras 7, 14)
(C) Subsoil Rights - Ownership of subsoil minerals follows land ownership unless legally deprived; however, the claimant failed to substantiate claims for silica sand in the subsoil. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a common judgment regarding the acquisition of land for an industrial growth centre, with the claimant seeking enhanced compensation based on incorrect categorization and the value of silica sand.
Findings of Court:
The reference court's categorization and compensation were upheld as valid, with no grounds for interference found.
Issues: The main issues were the proper categorization of land and entitlement to compensation for silica sand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that categorization must be supported by evidence, and expert opinions not obtained through proper legal channels are inadmissible.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025
[LA.App.Nos.46/2015, 363/2016, 366/2016 & 373/2016]
These Land Acquisition Appeals are filed challenging the common judgment dated 31.10.2012 in LAR Nos.154 of 2003, 155 of 2003, 156 of 2003 and 158 of 2003 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala. Since these appeals arise from a common judgment and the parties, purpose of acquisition and the date of notification are the same in all appeals, they are considered and disposed of together.
2. Appellant in these LAAs was the claimant in the LARs. The 1st and the 2nd respondents herein are the State and the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC) the requisitioning authority respectively who were respondents 1 and 2 in the LARs. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the LARs.
3. Four separate parcels of land situated in Pallippuram village belonging to the claimant having different extents were acquired for the purpose of setting up an industrial growth centre for KSIDC. Section 4 (1) notification was published in the gazette on 08.08.1997. Possession of the properties were taken on various dates.
4. (i) In LAA No.366 of 2016 (arising from LAR No.154 of 2003) an extent of 14.39 Ares (35.55 cents) of land, comprised in Sy.No.188/6-2 was acquired. Land was included in Category No.3. The possession was taken on 18.09.2000. The land value was fixed at Rs.7,876/- per Are. An amount of Rs.27,000/- was awarded towards the value of silica sand.
(ii) In LAA No.46 of 2015 (arising from LAR No.155 of 2003) an extent of 1.04 Ares (3.40 cents) of land, comprised in Sy.No.187/5-8 was acquired. Land was included in Category No.3. The possession was taken on 20.07.2000. The land value was fixed at Rs.7,876/- per Are.
(iii) In LAA No.363/2016 (arising from LAR No.156 of 2003) an extent of 15.55 Ares (38.4 cents) of land, comprised in Sy.No.187/5-7 was acquired. Land was included in Category No.3. The possession was taken on 18.09.2000. The land value was fixed at Rs.7,876/- per Are. An amount of Rs.40,500/- was awarded towards the value of silica sand.
(iv) In LAA No.373 of 2016 (arising from LAR No.158 of 2003) an extent of 17.49 Ares + 0.9 Ares (18.39 Ares) (45.44 cents) of land, comprised in Sy.No.188/6-1 was acquired. Land was included in Category No.4. The possession was taken on 03.09.2000. The land value was fixed at Rs.988/- per Are.
5. The claimant had moved the reference court seeking enhancement of land value as well as enhanced compensation for silica sand in the respective properties. The reference court had allowed an enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.17,297/- per Are. No enhancement was granted towards the silica sand on the acquired land. These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree in the LARs.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the impugned judgments are erroneous and unsustainable in law. The challenge put forth against the judgments are on two counts viz., (1) categorisation of land and (2) compensation for silica sand. As regards categorisation, the reference court had included the property in Category No.3. The correct categorization, according to the learned counsel, should have been as Category No.2. The compensation ought to have been fixed on the said basis. The reference court went wrong in finding that there is no panchayat gravel road for direct access from the property and the evidence tendered by the claimant in this regard to prove that the property had road access was not correctly appreciated by the court below. The reference court went wrong in finding that due compensation had been given by the acquisition officer for the deposit of silica on the surface sand level, available in the acquired property. The exact extent of surface deposit was not at all evaluated by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). Though an expert was examined to prove the quantity of silica sand for which the compensation ought to have bee
