Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ,IDUKKI – Appellant
Versus
JAMES S/O JOSEPH THOTTUMKAL – Respondent
LA.App. 102/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.REKHA C NAIR-SR.GP
For the Respondents: Sri.Binu Paul
The burden of proof rests on the party asserting a claim regarding land classification, and insufficient evidence leads to upholding the Reference Court's decision.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1) - Compensation for acquired land - Dispute regarding the extent of land acquired and its classification as puramboke land - Reference Court awarded compensation for 1.81 Ares despite respondents claiming only 1.10 Ares due to puramboke classification - Court upheld Reference Court's decision based on lack of evidence from respondents to support puramboke claim. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof lies on the party asserting the claim - Respondents failed to provide evidence to classify the contested land as puramboke. (Paras 4)
Facts of the case:
The land was acquired for road construction, with a dispute over the extent of land taken and its classification. The claimant sought compensation for 1.81 Ares, while the respondents contended only 1.10 Ares was compensable due to puramboke classification.
Findings of Court:
The Reference Court's decision to award compensation for the entire 1.81 Ares was justified due to insufficient evidence from the respondents regarding the puramboke claim.
Issues: The primary issue was the classification of the land as puramboke and the extent of compensation owed to the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming a classification of land, and without evidence, the Reference Court's findings were upheld.
Result: LAA dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over land acquisition extent and compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claimant's land extent and puramboke classification questioned. (Para 3) |
| 3. lack of evidence from respondents to support puramboke claim. (Para 4) |
| 4. court upheld reference court's decision, dismissing the appeal. (Para 5) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 102 OF 2023 THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2010 IN LAR NO.24 OF
2006 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ,IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.T.PROJECT DIVISION ,PWD PONKUNNAM, PIN -
686506 SMT.REKHA C NAIR-SR.GP RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 JAMES S/O JOSEPH THOTTUMKAL KOLANI P O THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 685608
2 THE SECRETARY THE THODUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.969 ,THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685584 BY ADVS.
BINU PAUL SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA)(K/280/1990)
JEAN ALEX(K/946/1998)
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Land was acquired from the 1st respondent/claimant as per Section 4 (1) Notification dated 19.10.2004, for the Ponkunnam-Thodupuzha road. According to the Land Acquisition Authorities, the extent of land acquired is only 1.10 Ares. According to the claimant, the extent of land acquired is 1.81 Ares. According to the Land Acquisition Authorities, 0.71 Ares out of the area taken possession from the claimant is puramboke land and hence award was passed only with granting compensation only for 1.10 Ares. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant filed Reference Application with respect to the land value and extent. The Reference Court found that the claimant is entitled to get compensation for 1.81 Ares which was taken possession from the claimant. The land value was also enhanced by the Reference Court. This appeal is filed by the respondents in the Land Acquisition Reference challenging the judgment of the Reference Court to the extent to which it granted compensation for the 0.71 Ares, which, according to them is a puramboke land.
2. I heard Smt.Rekha C Nair, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent claimant Sri.Binu Paul.
3. Admittedly, 1.81 Ares of land is taken possession from the claimant by the respondents. The compensation was awarded only with respect to 1.10 Ares, as according to the Land Acquisition OfÏcer, 0.71 Ares is a puramboke land. The respondent acquired part of the property which the claimant obtained as per Ext.A5 sale deed. At the instance of the claimant, a commission was taken out and the commission has filed Ext. X1 Report along with X1(a) Rough Sketch, X1(b) Survey Plan and X1(c) Valuation Report., Ext. X1(b) report shows the entire area covered by Ext.A5 document, the area acquired by the respondents and the area of puramboke land in the possession of the claimants having an extent of 0.71 Ares. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that 0.71 Ares taken possession from the claimants is a puramboke land. The basis for reporting that the said 0.71 Ares as a puramboke land is not reported in the Commission Report. Admittedly, the property covered by Ext.A5 including the alleged puramboke land had been lying within the compound wall of the claimant. The extend of 1.81 Ares is taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A5 would show that there is excess land within the boundaries. Then the question is whether the excess land is puramboke land or not.
4. On perusing the evidence adduced by the respondents, it is seen that the respondents have not adduced any evidence to prove that the said 0.71 Ares taken possession from the claimant is a puramboke land. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. In Ext.R1 Mahazar also the said 0.71 Ares is not shown. So, there is no convincing evidence
