ITTIMATHU PAVU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a land acquisition reference which was decided by the learned District Judge of Trichur in L.A. Case No. 17 of 1121. A plot of land measuring 1 1/4 cents in Kattakampal village, and a building standing thereon, of which the claimant appellant was the kanamdar, were compulsorily acquired by the State. The Diwan Peishkar, who was the Land Acquisition Officer, fixed Rs. 10 per cent for the land and Rs. 842 for the building as compensation. The appellant is concerned only with the value fixed for the land, which is the question raised in this appeal. The compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was to be shared equally by the appellant and by the jenmi. The matter was referred to the District Court, Trichur, because the appellant here claimed Rs. 500 per cent for the land. His evidence at the hearing of the reference in the lower Court was that over 20 years before the date of the acquisition, he had purchased the land with an adjacent site, 1 1/8 cents in extent for Rs. 200. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, this is not a safe criterion for fixing the value of the land, because the document recites that on the date of the purchase there were fruit bearing trees on the land as also a super structure about the nature of which there is no reliable evidence. In the circumstances, the learned District Judge relied on the evidence given by the Commissioner. Mr. C. R. Iyyunni, who was a member of the Bar at the time he was appointed Commissioner and afterwards became a Minister in Cochin State. It is clear from the order of the learned District Judge, that he based the valuation mainly upon the report of Mr. Iyyunni and the evidence given by him at the hearing of the reference. The evidence was read before this Court. The witness stated in the course of report, as follows:

(2.) The next point urged relates to the direction contained in the lower Courts order regarding costs. The direction is that the appellant and the State should pay and receive proportionate costs. On working out this direction into figures, we find that the appellant will be entitled to draw Rs. 14-8-0 and will have to pay Rs. 67-11-0 as costs to the State. It will be seen that both sides put forward exaggerated versions from their respective view-points. The value of the land as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was only Rs. 10 per cent. The appellant claimed Rs. 500 per cent. Therefore it cannot be said that the appellant alone is to be blamed and that he has put forward an unconscionable claim. In these circumstances, we consider that the proper order to make regarding costs is to direct each party to bear his own costs. The order made by the lower Court is modified in these terms.