Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA (RAILWAYS), KAYAMKULAM – Appellant
Versus
SARASWATHIYAMMA ANJILIKKAPPILLIL(THITTAYIL), KARUMADY – Respondent
LA.APP. NO. 148 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: REKHA C NAIR, SR.GP
For the Respondents: DSGI FOR R2
The court validated reduced compensation for land acquisition, aligning market value to established precedents.
Headnote:This judgment concerns LA.APP. NO. 148 OF 2022 reviewing the award dated 27.07.2020 in LAR NO.45 of 2019. The appellant is contesting the valuation of land for railway line expansion, specifically regarding adopted market value calculations. The court found previous judgments justified a market value adjustment to 200% instead of the 300% set by the Authority. The appeal was partially allowed with modified compensation values for land.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision of land compensation values. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's reasoning for altering market value. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is against the award dated
27.07.2020 in L.A.R. No.45 of 2019 on the file of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Authority, Alappuzha. The appellant was the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent herein was the claimant before the authority. An extent of 9.39 Ares (1.39 Ares of dry land and 8.00 Ares of wet land without pathway access – ‘D’ category) owned by the 1st respondent was acquired for doubling of railway line between Haripad and Ambalappuzha. The Land Acquisition Officer prepared the Basic Valuation Report (BVR) which was approved by the District Collector. The DLPC had taken the basic land value as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the market value was fixed by the DLPC after negotiation with the land owners.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the category of dry land into A, B, C, D and E. The land acquired from the party respondent was under dry and wet land without pathway, – D category. The actual market value fixed by DLPC was Rs.2,16,212/- per Are for dry land and 17,297/- per Are for wet land without pathway access. The same was approved by SLEC.
3. Pursuant to coming into force of the Act of
2013, the District Collector revised the compensation and re- fixed it at Rs.68,830/-, per Are for dry land and Rs.5,642/- per Are for wet land without pathway access. After adopting 1.4 as the multiplication factor and adding 100 % solatium and 12% increase in the market value an amount of Rs.5,58,996/- was sanctioned as per the final award. The balance amount was disbursed to the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent sought reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The matter was considered by the Authority which decided to re-fix the market value by adopting the following formula:- 200% of the Basic Land Value + Basic Land Value = Actual Market Value. Thus the Authority enhanced the market value of the property and re-fixed the same at Rs.1,99,089/- per Are for dry land and Rs.13,794/- per Are for wet land without pathway access. In effect 300% of the basic value fixed by the DLPC was taken to arrive at the market value.
4. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance for the 1st respondent. Heard, the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that, in L.A. App.No.446 of 2022 and connected cases, by judgment dated 08.07.2025, this Court had reduced the land value to 200% instead of 300% granted by the Authority. Those cases were also arising from the same notification. Therefore, I am of the view that, the market value fixed by the Authority in this case is also liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the market value for the dry land is fixed as Rs.1,32,726/-. For the wet land the market value is fixed at Rs.9,196/-.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part by modifying the fixation of market value as above. In all other aspects the impugned award is confirmed. No costs.
