LAWS(KER)-2011-2-197

SHAM OON SAHIB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On February 16, 2011
SHAM-OON SAHIB Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L.A.A. 1104/08 is preferred by the claimant and L.A.A.260/09 is preferred by the Government. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Vizhinjam village pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 20.12.2001. The acquisition was for construction of a road to Pulloorkonam Township colony for the Fisheries Department. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.12,367/- per Are. Before the Reference Court Exts.A2 to A4 were the documents on which the claimants relied mostly in support of their claim for enhanced land value. Ext.A2 reflects a land value of Rs.32,608/- per cent. Ext.A3 reflects a land value of Rs.88,888/- per cent. Ext.A4 a document of 1994 reflects a land value of Rs.1 lakh per cent. The Court below did not place specific reliance on the three documents. The reasons stated by the Court below is that the property covered by the three documents are situated in different survey numbers. Ultimately the Court below would refix the value at Rs.75,000/- per Are(interestingly the rate reflected in Ext.A2).

(2.) IN this appeal various grounds are raised by the appellant challenging the inadequacy of compensation fixed under the impugned award. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us on the basis of the various grounds. All the submissions of Sri.Latheesh Sebastian were resisted by Smt.T.T. Josephina, the Government Pleader. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions and we have also gone through the impugned judgment. It was through the claimant himself that all the three documents Exts.A2 to A4 were marked in evidence. The appellant did not have any acquaintance with these documents for proving the transactions recorded therein. More importantly the appellant did not take out a Commission so that report can be obtained regarding the comparability of the properties covered by Exts.A2 to A4 and the property under acquisition.

(3.) THEREFORE the result of the above discussion is as follows.