PRASEED C Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is the appellant. His land with building was acquired by the Government for the purpose of K.R.Narayanan Memorial National Institute of Visual Science and Arts. The land was in Chengalam village of Kottayam District. The property was situated at a distance of one kilometre from Kanjiramattom junction. The property was enjoying the frontage of two roads. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 23/05/06. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 6,619/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the appellant relied mainly on Ext.A1 Sale Deed. Ext.A1 Sale Deed was executed on 17/02/03. Ext.A1 related to 17 cents of land. For three cents covered by Ext.A1 land value was paid at the rate of Rs. 33,000/- per cent. For the balance extent of 14 cents land value was paid at the rate of Rs. 49,000/- per cent. The Reference Court discarded Ext.A1 for the reason that Ext.A1 was purchased by the purchaser for a fancy price and does not reveal the normal market value in the locality. It was also noticed that Ext.A1 was in a different village viz. Akalakunnam village situated 1.5 kilometres away. Ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge found that Ext.R1 basis document relied on by the Government was in respect of property much inferior to the properties under acquisition. In this regard Ext.C1 Commission Report was relied on. In view of the inferiority of the basis property, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by 60% and re-fixed the value at Rs. 10,590/- per Are.

(2.) In this appeal, it is urged that the compensation awarded by the court below towards value of the buildings and other improvements is inadequate. It is also urged that the market value of the land fixed is too low and that Ext.A1 document should have been relied on. The claim for land value is limited to Rs. 24,000/- per Are more than what is awarded by the Reference Court. Claim for building value is limited to Rs. 50,000/-.

(3.) Sri.T.I.Abdul Salam, the learned counsel for the appellant would address strenuous submissions before us based on various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. Sri.Abdul Salam drew our attention to Ext.C1 Commission Report and submitted that the property under acquisition was enjoying the frontage of two roads and the distance between the property under acquisition at Kanjiramattom junction is one kilometre. He pointed out with reference to the Commission Report that in Kanjiramattom junction there are so many institutions. Though in Akalakunnam village as the distance between Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition is 1.5 kms the learned Subordinate Judge should have relied on Ext.A1, so submitted Sri.Abdul Salam. Sri.Abdul Salam submitted that the compensation awarded by the court below for the building is too low. The building had been let out to a hotelier for conducting a hotel and was fetching to the owner substantial amount by way of rent. The Advocate Commissioner recommended that the correct value of the building is Rs. 4 lakhs. Therefore, the claim of the appellant regarding the building value should be allowed in full.