STATE OF KERALA Vs. T.K. SURENDRANATH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is the award of Land Acquisition Reference Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a case pertaining to acquisition of land in Thycaud village at the behest of TRIDA. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 27/06/03. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 2,71,700/ - per Are. The only tangible item of evidence before the Reference Court was Ext.A1 judgment. Under Ext.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5,47,289/ - per Are which the Reference Court had re -fixed at Rs. 17,31,306/ - per Are. The court below relying practically on Ext.A1 took the view that the value of the acquired property should be at least 60% of the property shown in Ext.A1. After making some additions for the passage of time, the court below re -fixed the value at Rs. 24,23,828/ - per Are.

(2.) VARIOUS grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. It is submitted that there was absolutely no evidence before the court regarding comparability between Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition. Under Ext.A1 the percentage of enhancement granted is only 400% while exorbitant enhancement has been given by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, in the absence of any evidence in the nature of a Commission Report or so, the court below was not justified in relying on Ext.A1. Thus, the only available legal evidence was the oral evidence of parties. It was not proper to have awarded enhancement based on oral evidence.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the court below was not justified in relying on Ext.A1 in the absence of any evidence in the nature of a commission report or so regarding the comparability of the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1. When the claimant was relying on Ext.A1, it was the duty of the claimant to have taken out a commission so that the court have a report regarding the comparability of these properties.