MUHAMMEDKUTTY S/O. ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, ILLETHEYYIL HOUSE, PATTAMBI Vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. RAILWAY, TIRUR AND THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. His property in Nethrimangalam village situated within the limits of Pattambi town was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 10/11/03 for the purpose of Railways. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the basis document fixed land value at Rs. 11,000/ - per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellant produced Exts.A1 to A3. Apart from those documents, he took out a commission. The Commissioner inspected the acquired property as well as the property covered by Ext.A2. The Commissioner reported that the property under acquisition was superior to the property covered by Ext.A2. It was reported that while the property under acquisition was enjoying the frontage of State Highway Ext.A2 property was enjoying the frontage of only Panchayath road. It was also reported that the distance between the two properties was only 68 metres. Under Ext.A2 the market value of land reflected was Rs. 46,000/ - per cent. The argument before the reference court (before us also) was that additions may be given to the value reflected in Ext.A2 for passage of two years and ten months time and the market value be re -fixed accordingly. The learned Subordinate Judge however did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A2. The appellant had produced Ext.A3 judgment also. What the learned Subordinate Judge did was to rely on Ext.A3 and to re -fix the market value at Rs. 35,000/ - per cent. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.Sreehari, the Learned Counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri. Sreehari's argument was based on Ext.A2 and the Commissioner's Report. He submitted that there was no reason for discarding Ext.A2. Ext.A2 should be relied on and the appeal be allowed and the market value be re -fixed by Rs. 50,000/ - per cent, the rate claimed by the appellant in the appeal.

(2.) PER contra Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the appellant who produced Ext.A2 and having produced Ext.A3 and relying upon the same, is not entitled to blame the learned Subordinate Judge for having relied on Ext.A3. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a re -appraisal of the evidence, particularly Ext.A2 as well as the Commissioner's Report. We find that the Commissioner on the basis of an inspection of the acquired property and Ext.A2 property reported that the acquired property was superior to Ext.A2 property. Both properties were in the same village and situated within the limits of the very same town. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in completely discarding Ext.A2. The learned Subordinate Judge should have fixed the land value relying upon Ext.A3 as well as Ext.A2. We, on a re -appraisal of the evidence in which we take into account Ext.A2 also, are of the view that the market value of the property under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 48,000/ - per cent. Allowing this appeal we re -fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 48,000/ - per cent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.