AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Pius C. Kuriakose
This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Karumkulam Village near Neyyattinkara pursuant to Section 4(1)notification published on 5/1/2001 for the purpose of construction of 33 KV Substation at Poovar of K.S.E.B. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 32,120/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants produced Exts.A1. Ext. A1 reflected a land value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. Ext. A1 was discarded for the reason that the same pertains to a tiny bit land extending to less than two cents. We approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having discarded Ext. A1 for fixing the market value of the land. Ultimately what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to refix the market value at Rs. 1,28,480/- on a guess estimate. Even though resorting to guess work for fixing the market value of the land in land acquisition cases is permissible to a certain extent in order that the guess made before the Sub Court is a good one, the guess would have some foundation on the basis of the evidence available on record. We do not find that it is a correct guess work that has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge in this case. It is seen from the impugned award itself that document No. 712 dated 30/6/1999 of Kanjiramkulam Sub Registry was one of the document considered and discussed by the Awarding Officer in his award. This document reflected a land value at Rs. 32,481/- per Are. Taking into account the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jeevanbhai Patel & Anr.[2008 SAR (Civil) 894], there is every justification for giving additions at the rate of 5 to 15% per year depending upon the nature of the area whether urban or rural. Naturally, additions have to be made on the value reflected in the above document. There is considerable variation in the values reflected in the various documents considered by the Land Acquisition officer for the purpose of passing award. As noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge, these documents show that there is a trend of escalation in the market value of the land in the locality. Taking all the inputs into account as they are relevant, we are of the view that on a better guess, the market value of the land under acquisition can be refixed at Rs. 80,000/- per Are. Allowing the appeal, we refix the market value of the land at Rs. 80,000/- per Are. We find from the impugned award that the learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the interest u/s 28 to the claimant during a certain period as there was some laches on the part of the claimants in prosecuting the reference. Since the market value of the land under acquisition fixed by the Reference Court is reduced by us, we delete that condition. Claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible u/s 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Act on the market value refixed under this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.