State of Kerala vs Abraham John

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R. No. 5/2006 of the Sub Court, Palakkad.

The acquisition is for the Kozhikode-Palakkad road at Kalmandapam-Kalpathy. Section 4(1) notification is dated 23.07.2004. The award was passed on 22.08.2005.

The claimant was awarded land value at Rs. 20,000/- per cent and dissatisfied with the same, the reference application was filed, by claiming land value at Rs. 1.5 lakhs per cent. The total extent of the property is 7.5829 cents.

We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri Aloysius Thomas and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Rajesh Sivaramankutty. The main argument raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader is that without any comparable documents and based on the report of the Commissioner alone, the land value was assessed by the court below. It is submitted that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proving the land value prevalent at the time of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore the impugned judgment require interference from this Court.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the court below has found that the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the land value reflected by the lowest among 8 documents. Even going by the documents referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer, it can be seen that the land value varies from Rs. 40,000/- to 1.5 lakhs. Going by the report of the Commissioner, his opinion is that the land value may be around Rs. 1 lakh. But the court below has adopted only half of the same, namely, Rs. 50,000/- per cent, and therefore the impugned judgment requires no interference at the hands of this Court.

We have considered the rival submissions. In para. 8, the learned Judge has discussed the manner in which the Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the land value. The award shows 7 transactions of properties in the locality were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and the said transactions took place during the period from 2001 to 2004. It is stated, after assessing the materials, that the land value in the area varies from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1.5 lakhs per cent. The basic document adopted is document No. 2240/04 and it is observed that no reasons have been stated in adopting the land value as also in rejecting the other six documents. It is also stated that the features of the land, facilities and convenience and access of the base land and acquired land have not been stated by the Land Acquisition Officer.

We also find that the basic document and other documents have not been produced in evidence. After referring to the various aspects and after considering the report of the Commissioner, the court below was of the view that since the very purpose of the acquisition is for widening of the road, it is clear that the property is on the side of a public road. The learned Government Pleader submitted that it is described as nancha. But the learned counsel for the respondent explained that the features of the property will show that it is lying as a land filled with earth as converted one and remaining as vacant land. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, since the court below has only adopted half of the value reflected in the locality namely, Rs. 50,000/-, the matter may not be sent back to the court below and the same may be confirmed.

Having bestowed our anxious consideration in the matter, we are of opinion that at this distance of time it may not be proper for remanding the reference for fresh consideration. Of course there were no other sale deeds made available by the respondent. But he has given evidence as AW1 and report of the Advocate Commissioner was also before the Court apart from the documents referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award. The property is situated within Palakkad Municipality in a prominent locality. Since the court below has also entered a finding that the acquired property is having proximity to the public road, commercial and educational institutions, Government offices and places of worship, the land value fixed at Rs. 50,000/- is reasonable. We find no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs.