SARASAMMA SANTHAKUMARI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Thrikkadavoor village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/5/1995 The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Kollam Bye pass. The land was dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 35,405/- per Are.

(2.) Before the Reference Court, Ext. A1 and A2 two pre notification documents reflecting value of Rs. 75,000/- per are were relied on. These documents were proved by examining P.W. 1 claimant herself. The claimant in cross examination by the Government Pleader was unable to give the details of the scheduled portions of these documents. The learned Sub Judge for the above reason did not place any reliance on these two documents. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was to do guess work and to refix the market value granting enhancement of 30% above what was awarded by the LAO.

(3.) Sri. C.A. Rajeev, learned Counsel for the Appellant would argue before us that the court below was not justified in discarding Exts. A1 and A2 completely. Smt. P.N. Sumangala, learned Government Pleader however would support the impugned judgment. According to her, as Exts. A1 and A2 were not properly proved by examining vendor or vendee, the court below was not justified in not placing reliance on them. True, Exts. A1 and A2 were not proved by examining the parties. But we notice another aspect of the matter. To whatever evidence that was adduced by the claimant, there is not even formal counter evidence on the side of the Government. We are of the view that there was justification for placing reliance at least to a certain extent on Exts. A1 and A2. Keeping in mind Exts. A1 and A2 also, we are inclined to refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 50,000/- per Are.