AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appeal is preferred by the Kerala State Electricity Board, the Requisitioning Authority and the memorandum of cross objection is filed by the claimant. The property was in Thaikkad village within the area of Guruvayoor township. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23/10/91. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per Are treating the property to be wetland. Before the Reference Court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A13, C1 Commission Report, then the oral evidence of AWs. 1 to 4 and RWs. 1 and 2. Relying mainly on Ext.C1 Commission Report and the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge would come to the conclusion that the property under acquisition was not waterlogged land as wrongly found by the Land Acquisition Officer, but was actually dry land. The learned Subordinate Judge found that of the various documents put in evidence by the claimant, Ext. A5 was the most apposite one. Ext.A5 was in respect of a small plot extending to 4.5 cents. Ext.A5 reveals a land value of Rs. 40,000/- per cent. Ext.A5 was executed one year and three months prior to the promulgation of Section 4 (1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that as Ext. A5 was in respect of a small plot deductions have to be made for smallness of the plot. Accordingly, relying on Ext. A5, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the land value at Rs. 30,000/- per Are.
In this appeal, the Electricity Board contends that the rate fixed by the Reference Court is excessive whereas in the Cross Objection the contention raised by the claimant is that the rate fixed by the Reference Court is inadequate. According to claimants, at least Rs. 40,000/- per Are should have been granted as additions has to be made for passage of fifteen months time.
We have heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant/Electricity Board and those of Sri. A.V.M. Salahudeen, the Learned Counsel for the Cross Objector/claimant. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellant was that the rate re-fixed by the Reference Court is excessive whereas the argument of Salahudeen was that the rate re-fixed is quite inadequate.
Having heard the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence ourselves, we are of the view that there is some inadequacy in the rate re-fixed by the Reference Court based on Ext. A5. According to us, additions should have been made to the value revealed by Ext.A5 for the passage of fifteen months time. At the same time, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in making deductions for the smallness of the land covered by Ext.A5. We are of the view that based on Ext. A5 itself, the value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs. 35,000/- per Are. At the same time, we take into account the judgments of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Gadwal Vs. Smt. Sreelatha Bhoopal and another, ; Gafar and Others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority and Another, & State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and Others, and deduct 5% for the largeness of the land under acquisition which is more than 55 cents. This means that the market value of the land under acquisition is re-fixed by us at Rs. 33,250/- per Are. The appeal is dismissed. The memorandum of cross objections is allowed. On the re-fixed the compensation the claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. As regards the interest u/s 28 we clarify that the interest shall be at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession and thereafter only at the rate of 15%. To that extent also the award is modified. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.