A land acquisition claimant is entitled to a valuation consistent with comparable properties despite evidentiary challenges.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM TH FRIDAY, THE 26 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 4TH ASWINA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 238 OF 2019 [AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2019 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PAYYANNUR IN LAR NO.26 OF 2015]

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

MUKKUNNUKARAN NARAYANAN, PUSHPA NIVAS,KARAMEL,ANNUR.P.O, PAYYANNUR VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV SHRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR,PIN-670 002.

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), THALASSERY-670 101.

SMT.REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The claimant in LAR No.26/2015 is the appellant. As per the

1.

impugned judgment, a reference under Section 28A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , at the instance of the claimant was rejected. His other reference as LAR No.27/2015 under (3) is allowed as per the impugned judgment fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent relying on Ext.A1 judgment of the same Court, which is modified by this Court in Ext.A2 judgment. This Appeal is filed claiming fixation of land value at Rs.1,500/- per cent in LAR No.26/2015 also.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. Rekha C. Nair.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the

3.

claim of the appellant on the basis of Exts.A1 and A2 was illegally rejected by the Reference Court, finding that there is no evidence that the property included in Exts.A1 and A2 and the acquired property are comparable. On the other hand, in LAR No.27/2015, the Court found that the property involved in Exts.A1 and A2 and the acquired property in LAR No.27/2015 are comparable since both the properties are situated in the same survey number, and hence, the land value at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent was given. The learned counsel contended that in all these three cases, namely, LAR No.26/2015, LAR No.27/2015 and Ext.A1 L.A.R., the Land Acquisition Officer granted the same value, namely, Rs.1,15,200/- per hectare, equivalent to Rs.466/- per cent. Hence, the claimant in the present case also is entitled to get fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent on the basis of Exts.A1 and A2, as all these properties are acquired as per the very same section 4(1) Notification dated 22.02.1983 for the very same purpose, namely, for the establishment of Ezhimala Naval Academy.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader contended

4.

that in view of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the evidence as to acquisition of properties as per the very same Section

4(1) Notification alone is not sufficient. There should be evidence before the Court that both properties are comparable. The appellant/claimant did not adduce any evidence to show that the property acquired from him is comparable to the property covered by Ext.A1 produced before the District Collector along with the Section 28A Application. Hence, the Reference Court correctly answered the Reference, rejecting the claim, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival contentions.

The property involved in LAR No.26/2015 is 0.3760 hectares of land

6.

in R.S. No.411/7 of Ramanthali Village. The property involved in LAR No.27/2015 is 0.7514 hectares in R.S. No.309/1 of Ramanthali village. Both these properties were acquired as per the very same Section 4(1) Notification dated 22.02.1983. In both cases, compensation was awarded, fixing land value at the rate of Rs.1,15,200/- per Hect