RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants are the appellants. Their properties in Malappuram village situated within the limits of Malappuram Municipal town and at a distance of hardly 500 meters from the civil station in Malappuram town was acquired for the construction of approach road to Ummathoor-Aanakadavu bridge. The acquisition was on the basis of S. 4(1) notification which was published on 14.11.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a particular basis document and awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5008.29 percent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied mainly on Exts.A1 and A2 sales documents. Ext. A1 document was a pre notification document executed about two and half years prior to the date of S. 4(1) notification in favour of Malapuram District Police Co-operative Society and reflected land value at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per cent. Ext. A2 also reflected the same rate of land value. However, A2 was a post notification document executed on 10.10.2006. Apart from Exts.A1 and A2, the appellants relied also on Exts.X1 and X2 commission reports submitted by the very same advocate in two of the three cases which were involved in these appeals. The Commissioner's reports were to the effect that the properties were situated in a locality with several locational advantages. Under the impugned common judgment the learned Sub Judge has confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, Exts.A1 and A2 properties, unlike the properties under acquisition, were situated very near to the Malappuram town. For that reason no reliance was placed on Exts.Al and A2. The learned Subordinate Judge has blamed the claimants for not having challenged the rejection by the Land Acquisition Officer of documents which reflected much higher value than the value reflected in the basis documents. The learned Sub Judge also noticed that because of emergence of the approach road pursuant to the acquisition the value of those properties of the claimants, which were left out after acquisition, has increased considerably thus benefiting the appellants. The learned Subordinate Judge was more inspired by the oral evidence adduced by RW1 than by the oral evidence adduced by the claimants. Ultimately, the learned Sub Judge would approve the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and answer the reference holding that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is the correct market value of the property under acquisition.

(2.) In these appeals various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Reference Court. According to the appellants, even though there is justification for fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 90,000/- per cent for reducing litigational costs they are limiting their claims to Rs. 20,000/- per cent only.

(3.) Sri.Rajesh R.Kormath learned counsel for the appellants addressed us on the basis of the various grounds raised. The learned counsel read over to us certain portions of the notes to award as well as the impugned judgment. According to him, clause sixthly of S. 24 of the Land Acquisition Act specifically provides that any increase in the value of the unacquired property on account of the acquisition is an aspect to be neglected by the Reference Court while fixing the compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the observation of the learned Sub Judge that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are nearer to Malapuram town is not correct. The acquired properties were also very much near to Malappuram town, situated within the limits of Malappuram Municipality and at a distance of hardly 500 meters away from the Malappuram Collectorate.