Owner's Option To Demand Acquisition Of Entire Property Under Section 94 Of 2013 Act Is A Mandatory Prohibition On Authorities: Kerala High Court

"Section 94 contains a prohibition, and it is not an option which is available to the Requisitioning Authority. The option is something which is available to the person who is losing the land to say that his entire extent should be acquired." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that the Requisitioning Authority cannot refuse to acquire the remaining portion of a property if the owner exercises their option under Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).

A bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the statute creates a clear prohibition against partial acquisition when the owner desires the whole house or building to be taken, and the authorities cannot ignore this mandate based on their project requirements.

The petitioner, Joe Michael, owned 2.05 Ares of land and a building in Alappuzha West Village, which were notified for the widening of the Shavakotta Bridge. The authorities proposed to acquire 1.65 Ares, leaving behind a 40-square-meter triangular plot that the petitioner claimed was useless for any practical purpose. Despite the petitioner requesting the acquisition of the entire plot under Section 94 before possession was taken, the Special Tahsildar issued a communication (Ext.P7) refusing the request on the grounds that the additional land was not required for the project alignment.

The primary question before the court was whether the Requisitioning Authority has the discretion to reject an owner's request for total acquisition under Section 94 of the 2013 Act. The court was also called upon to determine the procedural requirements the Collector must follow when an owner expresses a desire to have the whole of their house, manufactory, or building acquired instead of just a part.

Statutory Prohibition Under Section 94 Of The 2013 Act

The Court noted that Section 94(1) of the 2013 Act explicitly prohibits putting the provisions of the Act into force for the purpose of acquiring only a part of any house, manufactory, or building if the owner desires the whole to be acquired. The bench highlighted that the Act does not specify a particular stage at which the owner must express this desire, noting that in this case, the petitioner had raised the objection as early as April 2022, well before possession was taken.

Court Explains Nature Of Owner's Option

Justice Ravi emphasized that the right to demand total acquisition is an option granted exclusively to the land loser, not the state. The Court observed that the reasoning provided by the Special Tahsildar—that the authorities did not require the balance land for their alignment—was "on the face of it not in accordance with law." The bench clarified that once the owner exercises this option, the Requisitioning Authority does not have a say in whether they "need" the remaining portion.

"The option is something which is available to the person who is losing the land to say that his entire extent should be acquired."

Mandatory Referral To Appropriate Authority

Examining the proviso to Section 94(1), the Court held that if any question arises as to whether the land proposed to be taken forms part of a house or building within the meaning of the section, the Collector is duty-bound to refer the matter to the appropriate authority. Crucially, the Court pointed out that the statute mandates that possession of such land shall not be taken until the question has been determined by the authority concerned.

Authorities Acted Against Statutory Mandate

The Court found that the respondents acted in clear violation of Section 94 by taking possession of the property despite the petitioner's pending request for total acquisition. It was noted from the field sketch that the remaining triangular portion of 40 square meters appeared to be of no practical use. The bench remarked that the action of the respondents was "clearly against the provisions contained in Section 94" because they proceeded with partial possession without making the mandatory reference to the authority.

"The action of the respondents was clearly against the provisions contained in Section 94."

Setting aside the impugned communication (Ext.P7), the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the District Collector, Alappuzha, to act in accordance with the proviso to Section 94(1). The Collector has been ordered to refer the question regarding the balance land to the appropriate authority within six weeks. The authority is then required to hear the petitioner and take a final decision in accordance with law within four months thereafter.

In conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that the 2013 Act protects property owners from being left with unviable fragments of land or buildings. By mandating a referral process and halting possession during disputes, Section 94 ensures that the state's power of eminent domain does not result in the "severing" of properties in a manner that renders the remainder useless to the owner without just compensation for the whole.

Date of Decision: July 1, 2026