KARIMBANAKKAL SULAIMAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. An extent of 26.95 acres of land was acquired for the purpose of Kanhirapuzha Irrigation Project for which a notification was published on 19.10.1981. Out of the said land 18.86 acres of land was dry land and the rest was double crop wetland. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 30.9.1982 fixed the land value at Rs. 100.00 per acre for dry land and Rs. 250.00 per acre for the wetland. The claimant sought a reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Subordinate Judge, Ottappalam, by his judgment dated 12.2.1988, declined to grant any enhancement of the land value. Aggrieved by the same the claimant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment fixed the land value for the entire area at Rs. 1175.00 per acre. This judgment is challenged before us.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the respondent Sub-Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Kanhirapuzha Irrigation Project, Palghat District, Kerala, was served with notice, nobody has appeared before us.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext. A-1 document was relied on by the High Court for the purpose of enhancing the land value and it is pointed out that the land shown in Ext. A-1 dated 9.9.1982 was purchased by AW 2 at the rate of Rs. 4693.00 per acre and the High Court had granted only 1/4th of the price shown in Ext. A-1. This, according to the appellant, is erroneous and the High Court should have fixed the land value on the basis of Ext. A-1 document. It may be noticed that the document Ext. A-1 came into existence after a period of one year of the date of Section 4(1) notification. Though it is stated in Ext. A-1 that there was a registered agreement for sale in respect of Ext. A-1 transaction, that agreement was not produced. Moreover, Ext. A-1 is in respect of 5 cents of land, whereas the acquisition was in respect of about 50 cents of land. These factors have been taken into consideration by the High Court in fixing the land value. Moreover, the land acquired was agricultural land and it was acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project. There is nothing on record to show that the land had any commercial value or future potentialities. We do not think that the land value fixed is too low to be interfered with by this Court.