Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Jacob on 5 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:40336
1
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1369 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2017 IN WP(C)
NO.28422 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION),
KARAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT AND BANASURA SAGAR
IRRIGATION PROJECT,KALPETTA, PIN - 673592
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
THANKAMMA MATHEW, W/O LATE MATHEW
VADAKKEL,VADAKKEL HOUSE,KAMBLAKKAD P.O,VYTHIRI
TALUK,WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1517/2022, 1519/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40336
2
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1517 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2017 IN WP(C)
NO.31138 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C).:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION),
KARAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT AND BANASURA SAGAR
IRRIGATION PROJECT,KALPETTA, PIN - 673121
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
*1 MARY CHINNAPPAN,*(DECEASED)
W/O CHINNAPPAN,THANIKKA HOUSE,
PALLIKKUNNU.P.O,MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
WAYANAD-673 121.
*ADDL.R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED.
ADDL.R2: BINDU SEBASTIAN,
W/O SEBASTIAN,MANJAPPALLY VEEDU,THONDIYIL
PO,PERAVOOR ,KANNUR,PIN-670673.
ADDL.R3: SUNIL BABU .T.C.,
2025:KER:40336
3
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
S/O LATE CHINNAPPAN,THANNIKKAL HOUSE,
VALLIKKUNNU P.O,EDATHAM KUNNU ,PALLIKKUNNU
PO, ,WAYANAD,PIN-673121.
ADDL.R4: VINOD, S/O. CHINNAPPAN,THANNIKKAL
HOUSE,,EDATHAMKUNNU,PALLIKKUNNU
P.O, ,WAYANAD,PIN-670645.
(ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8/12/23 IN IA
1/23 IN WA 1517/22)
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1369/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40336
4
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1519 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2017 IN WP(C)
NO.31084 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION),
KARAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT AND BANASURA SAGAR
IRRIGATION PROJECT,KALPETTA, PIN - 673121
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1 P.E JOSE * (DECEASED),
S/O.ENAS,PARATTUKUNNU(H)PALLIKUNNU
P.O,MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 122.
* ADDL.R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED.
ADDL.R2: MARY JOSE, W/O LATE JOSEPH,PERETTAKUNNU
HOUSE,PALLIKKUNNU P.O.WAYANAD,PIN-673121.
ADDL.R3: JOICY JOSE, W/O CHRISTOPHER,PERETTAKUNNU
HOUSE,PALLIKKUNNU P.O .,WAYANAD,PIN-673121.
2025:KER:40336
5
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
ADDL.R4: JOLLY JOSE, W/O PRAKASAN,CHATHAKULANGARA
HOUSE,KANNADI P.O.,PALAKKAD-678701.
(ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8/12/23 IN
I.A.1/23 IN WA 1519/22).
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1369/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40336
6
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1524 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2017 IN WP(C)
NO.31131 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA,WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 121
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION),)
KARAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT AND BANASURA SAGAR
IRRIGATION PROJECT,KALPETTA, PIN - 670121
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JACOB, S/O SEBASTIAN, VELLATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALLIKKUNNU P.O,MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1369/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40336
7
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
'CR'
JUDGMENT
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
These writ appeals preferred by the State impugn the common
judgment dated 30.05.2017 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
Nos.28422, 31084, 31131, 31138 of 2012. The short issue decided by the
learned Single Judge was whether a claimant for compensation under
under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was entitled to base his
claim in respect of the land acquired from his possession, on an award
passed by the Lok Adalat. The said issue was answered in the affirmative
by the learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in these writ
appeals.
2. When these writ appeals came up for hearing before
us, the learned Government Pleader brought to our notice the judgment of
the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(NOIDA) v. Yunus and Others [2022 (9) SCC 516], wherein the
Supreme Court categorically held that an application under Section 28A
cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat
under Section 20. The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned judgment can be paraphrased in the following terms:
i. An award passed by the Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is
the culmination of a non adjudicatory process where the parties
are persuaded even by members of the Lok Adalat to arrive at a
2025:KER:40336
8WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
mutually agreeable compromise. The provisions contained in
Section 21 of the Act, by which the Award is treated as if it were
a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with
enforceability. The purport of the law giver being only to confer
the Award with an enforceability in a like manner as if it were a
decree, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a
decree cannot be extended further.
ii. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act deals with
determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the
Award of the Court. The reference to the word ‘Court’ implies
that an Award under Part III of the Act for the purposes of
Section 28A must necessarily be one that was passed
consequently to a reference under Section 18. In such cases,
the Court proceeds to adjudicate the reference, in particular,
bearing in mind, the matter which are to be considered under
Section 23 of the Act.
iii. For the provisions of Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act to be attracted, not only must the award passed
be a result of an adjudication, but it must also be passed by “the
Court” allowing compensation in excess of the amount awarded
by the Collector. The composition of a Lok Adalat in Section
19(2) of the 1987 Act does not make it ‘a Court’ for the purposes
of the Land Acquisition Act.
2025:KER:40336
9WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
iv. In view of the reasons stated above, an application
under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be
maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat
under Section 20 of the 1987 Act.
3. While these appeals could have been allowed by
merely referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we
cannot be oblivious to the plight of the respondents herein, who now face
a situation where, notwithstanding specific directions issued form this
Court to entertain their application under Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act and award a higher compensation based on the Lok Adalat
award, have to be satisfied with the meager amounts awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, since the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ
petitions, (which have attained finality since they were not challenged by
the State in any further proceedings) were not complied with by the
appellants herein within the time granted by this Court. In matters
involving compulsory acquisition of lands from citizens, we feel we would
be forsaking a great tradition if we do not come to the rescue of hapless
persons simply because the legal position has changed owing to a
subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court. In our view, since
the respondents herein trace their right to receive compensation to the
provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution, it would be the duty of this
Court to try and ensure that, notwithstanding the technical objections to
their claim for compensation, they are paid compensation at par with
2025:KER:40336
10
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
what has already been paid to other persons from whom lands were
compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the same project, namely, ‘the
Karapuzha Irrigation Project’.
4. The respondents in all these cases are persons who
owned properties in Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad District and their properties
were acquired as per a common notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act for the Karapuzha Irrigation Project. While the Land
Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the lands acquired from
them, at a rate of Rs.6,200/- per Cent, the respondents, on account of
certain peculiar circumstances applicable to them, did not prefer any
application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
While so, on 10.12.2011 at a Lok Adalat organized by the Taluk Legal
Services Committee, Sultan Bathery, LAR No.1 of 2008 of Sub Court,
Sultan Bathery was settled by the District Collector, Wayanad, by
agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.10,600/- per Cent for the acquired lands.
It was taking note of the said award of the Lok Adalt that the respondents
herein submitted applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition
Act, seeking a re-determination of the compensation paid to them on the
basis of the said Award.
5. When the applications preferred by them under
Section 28A of the Act, were not entertained by the Land Acquisition
Officer, the respondents approached this Court through the writ petitions
aforementioned, which the learned Single Judge allowed by directing the
2025:KER:40336
11
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
Special Tahsildar to consider the applications preferred by the
respondents and to pass appropriate orders thereon within six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
6. It would appear that the specific directions in the said
judgment were not complied with by the Special Tahsildar, who, in gross
violation of the directions issued from this Court, passed an order stating
that the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be treated as a decree of
the Civil Court. This led the respondents to approach this Court yet again
through another writ petition (WP(C) No.22396 of 2019) which was
disposed by a judgment dated 19.06.2020 directing the Special Tahsildar
to, once again, consider the matter on merits in the light of the
declaration of law by this Court in the judgment dated 30.05.2017 in
WP(C) No.28422 of 2012 and connected cases, within a period of two
months from the date of the judgment. Surprisingly, the Special Tahsildar
did not comply even with the aforesaid direction issued from this Court.
The State, however, preferred the present writ appeals, with a delay of
1883 days, after taking note of the judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the
Supreme Court referred above.
7. As can be seen from the aforesaid narration of facts,
the unfortunate circumstances in which the respondents herein find
themselves in have arisen only due to the lapse on the part of the Special
Tahsildar to comply with the directions issued from this Court. We are
cognizant of the fact that we cannot direct the State to now comply with
2025:KER:40336
12
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
those directions since that would be going against the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred above. We do feel
however, that the outcome of these writ appeals should not work to the
prejudice of the respondents, at least in the matter of obtaining
reasonable amounts of compensation which other landowners in the
neighbourhood had obtained from the reference Court in respect of the
lands acquired from them. We are told that the reference Court had in
similar matters, fixed the market value of the acquired land in the area at
Rs.10,400/- per Cent, which is only Rs.200/- less than what was fixed by
the Lok Adalat in the award that was relied upon by the respondents. The
respondents cannot now be relegated to their remedies under the Land
Acquisition Act for getting the aforesaid compensation amount in view of
the limitation period prescribed under the said statute that would prevent
them from pursuing their claims.
8. We feel the ends of justice would require us to extend
to the respondents the benefit of the enhanced compensation obtained by
other land holders in the same area from whom lands were compulsorily
acquired for the same project. Such a direction would only be in
conformity with the principles of fairness laid down by the Supreme
Court, in matters of compensation granted for the compulsory acquisition
of property from a citizen. The precedents of the Supreme Court also
require us to take a proactive approach in matters of land acquisition so
as to ensure that the Constitutional safeguards against an unfair
deprivation of property of citizens by way of compulsory acquisition are
2025:KER:40336
13
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
not violated. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct that the
appellants shall ensure that the respondent claimants are paid an amount
of Rs.10,400/- per Cent towards the market value of the lands acquired
from them, and the compensation due to them fixed accordingly by taking
the said market value into consideration. The respondents shall also be
entitled to the statutory benefits that flow from the said revised fixation of
the market value. As regards the payment of statutory interest, we make
it clear that although the Section 4(1) notification was of the year 2000, in
the peculiar factual situation in these cases, the interest on the
compensation amount need be paid only for the period from 30.05.2017,
the date of the impugned judgment in these appeals, till the date of
payment of the compensation amounts to the respondents.
The writ appeals preferred by the State are thus allowed by
following the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (NOIDA) v. Yunus and Others [2022 (9) SCC
516], subject to the directions issued in relation to the respondents, as
above.
Sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
das
2025:KER:40336
14
WA Nos.1369/2022, 1517/2022, 1519/2022, 1524/2022
APPENDIX OF WA 1369/2022
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) A COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN C.M. APPL. NO.
1/2022 IN W.A. NO. 1369/2022 DATED
13/2/2023 ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT
Annexure R1(b) A COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD BEARING NO.
452375782679 OF THIS RESPONDENT
Annexure R1(c) A COPY OF THE CASE STATUS OBTAINED FROM
THE THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Annexure R1(d) A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.22396/2019 DATED 19/6/2020
Annexure R1(e) A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAND
ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO. 88/2001 DATED
12/12/2002