Kasaragod: In Kasaragod, families who gave up land for the widening of National Highway 66 say they were taken for a ride -- twice over by the District Administration and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). They allege that they were not only underpaid for their land, but that more land was taken than what they were compensated for, a discrepancy that surfaced only during a recent government resurvey.

In 2019, Mahin K A, a real estate businessman, wrote to the then Collector Sajith Babu D, stating that the compensation fixed for his land in the heart of Kasaragod municipality; ₹13,776 per sq metre (₹5.57 lakh per cent) was far below prevailing market rates.

Mahin never got a reply. He died on October 24, 2024. His son, Mohammed K M, a software engineer in Bengaluru, quit his job and returned home to support the family.

In 2025, when the Revenue Department conducted a resurvey, Mohammed said the family discovered something more troubling. "We originally had 16.9 cents. We have the registered survey sketch and the tax receipts to prove that. NHAI acquired 0.79 cents on paper, so we should have had 16.03 cents left. But the resurvey found only 13.9 cents," said Mohammed, a resident of Anangoor.

By that calculation, the family lost 2.21 cents, land that was neither reflected in acquisition records nor compensated. In monetary terms, he estimates the loss at over ₹25 lakh, considering that compensation under the law includes the market value, 100% solatium on the market value, and 12% annual interest from notification to award or possession.

Mohammed has written to the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), seeking rectification and compensation. "There has been no response. It appears we will have to approach the court," he said.

A second family, a deeper crisis
The case of 75-year-old M Susheela, who lived in the same neighbourhood, is even more precarious. From her 8.5 cents, comprising a commercial building and her residence, the NHAI officially acquired 3.2 cents. The commercial building had been fetching her nearly ₹1 lakh a month in rent. 

The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) initially fixed the land value at ₹5.57 lakh and ₹6.05 lakh per cent. However, then Collector Sajith Babu, acting as arbitrator, directed CALA to reduce the rates to at least ₹4.17 lakh and ₹4.36 lakh per cent.

This was despite a registered sale deed in the same locality in 2019, valuing land at nearly ₹8 lakh per cent. With the statutory 100% solatium, the compensation would have effectively doubled at that benchmark.

"We were surprised to see two different valuations for plots that were part of a continuous stretch. And then the rates were reduced further," said Susheela's son, Prasad Maniyani. He said that several other landowners in the area were compensated at the higher rates originally fixed by CALA.

But the setback did not end there. In March 2021, the Collector's office mistakenly credited ₹77.78 lakh to Susheela's account. "Since compensation was being credited in instalments, we believed it was part of what was due to us," Prasad said. The family used the money to clear mounting debts.

At the time, they had already challenged the reduced valuation before the Collector and the District Court. They had also approached the High Court seeking at least 50% of the compensation at CALA's original rate, arguing that their commercial building, their only steady source of income, had been taken over and they needed funds to repay debts.

It was only in July 2025 that Collector Inbasekar K identified the payment of ₹77.78 lakh made in 2021 as excess and initiated revenue recovery proceedings.

In January 2026, the Collector auctioned off 3.9 cents of Susheela's remaining land in Anangoor for ₹48 lakh. That's why the alarm bell began to ring for Susheela's family. 

She had owned 8.5 cents, and NHAI acquired 3.2 cents (130 sq m). According to registered records, 5.3 cents should have remained. "When the Collector could auction only 3.9 cents, we realised that not only was our land undervalued, but more land had been taken than what was paid for," Prasad said.

As the auction proceeds did not cover the alleged excess payment, Susheela's property in Neerchal, 15 km away in Badiadka panchayat, has now been listed for auction.

She says she pleaded with the Collector to defer the auction until her cases on valuation and land extent are decided. 

Her son-in-law, Pramod, also realised he lost around 1.1 cents more than he was compensated for. He had submitted a written request offering to adjust the compensation owed to him for his own alleged land loss against the amount sought from Susheela. "Despite this, the Collector is going ahead with the auctioning," said Prasad. He has challenged the auction before the District Court.

The valuation tangle
In 2024, Susheela won a favourable order from the Kasaragod District Court, which directed the Collector to restore the higher valuation fixed by CALA. But NHAI has challenged that order in the High Court.

Susheela's counsel, Advocate Haseeb, argues that even CALA's valuation method is flawed. Under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Collector has three options to determine market value, but he should pick whichever is higher: a, the market value reflected in registered sale deeds in the same area; b, the average sale price of similar land in nearby areas (excluding anomalies); and c, the consented compensation amount in applicable cases.

"When there is a price of ₹19,776 per sq m from the same area, there was no need to go for the average method, which reduced the market value to below ₹ 14,000," he said.

Petitioners who challenged the averaging method before the District Court secured favourable orders directing that valuation be reconsidered under Section 26(a), that is, based on actual sale deeds in the locality.

Prasad said he has produced a registered sale deed showing ₹25,000 per sq metre in the same area. 

A detailed questionnaire sent to Collector Inbasekhar has not received a response. He has not responded to calls either. The report will be updated when he replies.

"Tomorrow, if we win the case, NHAI may have to pay us more instead of us owing them ₹77 lakh," said Prasad. "But by then, the land my mother is emotionally attached to will be gone."