Kerala State Electricity Board, Vythuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram 695 001 vs John Philip (represented by Power of Attorney Holder George John) and State of Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The requisitioning authority, the Kerala State Electricity Board is in appeal. According to them, the market value of the land under acquisition fixed by the reference court is excessive. The property under acquisition was in Konni Village. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 10.5.2000. The land was dry land. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5,517/- per Are. The reference court, relying on Exts.A3 to A7 documents and considering Ext.A8 basis document, would re-fix the land value at Rs. 75,000/- per Are. The Electricity Board contends that this re-fixation is excessive. We have heard the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the appellant/KSEB. We have also heard Mr. V. Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant KSEB was that the rate presently fixed by the reference court is excessive. According to him, the basis document was the most apposite document and the land value should not have been enhanced by the reference court.

Per contra, Mr. Philip Mathew submitted that the learned subordinate judge has correctly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties, viz. Exts.A3 to A7 and has arrived at the correct market value. According to him, the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the rate re-fixed by the reference court.

We have given our anxious consideration to all submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a re-appraisal of the evidence. According to us, the basis property was rightly found to be not comparable by the learned subordinate judge. The learned subordinate judge found on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner''s report that the property covered by Ext.A8 basis document is situated at a distance of 5 kms. from Konni junction and far away from the property under acquisition. It was also found that Ext.A8 property was situated at a level much lower than the level of the road unlike the property under acquisition. According to us, the learned sub judge was perfectly justified in discarding Ext.A8 and preferring the other documents. Having appreciated the documents, we are of the view that Ext.A4 dated 14.12.1998 reflecting a land value of Rs. 13,513/- per cent. Ext.A5 dated 14.12.1998 reflecting a land value of Rs. 47,950/- per cent and Ext.A6 dated 8.2.1999 reflecting a land value of Rs. 40,000/- per cent can be relied on to a certain extent to fix the correct market value of the land under acquisition. When reliance is placed on those documents and additions are made for passage of time at the rate of 10% per year, it will be seen that the rate presently fixed by the learned sub judge (Rs. 75,000/- per Are) is not at all excessive. We therefore dismiss these appeals, however, without any order as to cost.