ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUNHAMI HAJI, POONTHALA HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM, THRIKKANDIYOOR TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. His property in Thrikkandiyur village situated in the heart area of Tirur town was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 11/08/98 for the purpose of construction of a ring road in Tirur town. The property was garden land. The Land Acquisition Officer relying on basis document fixed the land value at Rs. 22,995/ - per cent. Before the Reference Court, the claimant produced Ext.A1 and also relied on Document No. 1078/94. Ext. A1 reflected land value at the rate of Rs. 33,529/ - per cent and the same was executed some thee years prior to the date of promulgation of Section 4(1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge discarded Ext.A1 mainly on the reason that Ext.A1 document takes in two buildings and no separate value is shown for the buildings. The Document No. 1078/94 was also discarded for the reason that the document number was not produced and marked in evidence. Above document reflected land value of Rs. 1 lakh per cent. Finally the learned Subordinate Judge found that the basis document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer was comparable in all respects to the properties under acquisition. Hence, the learned Subordinate Judge would adopt the value reflected in the basis document itself and confirm the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy of the compensation. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K. Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. C. R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri. Ramachandran drew our attention to Ext.A1 and to the Ext.C2 commission report and Ext.C1 plan submitted by the Commissioner. Sri. Ramachandran argued on the basis of the Commission Report that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the acquired property was perfectly comparable with the properties under acquisition is not correct. The Commissioner has clearly reported that while there is considerable commercial development in close proximity to the properties under acquisition, there is no such development in the neighbourhood of the properties under acquisition. The property under acquisition was certainly superior to the property covered by the basis document. Sri. Ramachandran also submitted that in most of the other cases covered by the very same acquisition, the learned Subordinate Judge had become inclined to grant 10 to 15% increase over the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even such a justice was not given to the appellant. This was unfair according to Sri. Ramachandran.

(2.) THE submission of Sri. Ramachandran were opposed by Sri. C. R. Syamkumar. According to Sri. C. R. Syamkumar, the learned Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons for confirming the award of the Reference Court. Ext.A1 could not have been relied on as Ext.A1 takes in two buildings. Document No. 1078/94 was not produced. The Commissioner did not inspect the property covered by that document. In the absence of any evidence the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be blamed for what he did. The maximum indulgence that can be shown is to award 10% increase as the increase at that rate was given by the learned Subordinate Judge in this case. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick re - appraisal of the evidence. We are in agreement with the court below as well as Sri. C.R. Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.A1 could not have been relied on for fixing the market value of the land under acquisition. At the same time, we are unable to accept the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the property under acquisition was similar in all respects to the property covered by the basis document. We rely on the Commissioner's Report and find that the property under acquisition was slightly superior to the property covered by basis document. We feel that applying the rule of thumb the appellant can be granted some more enhancement. The enhancement at slightly more than 20% will be justified in this case. Giving enhancement that way, we re -fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 28,000/ - 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 in the appeal. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted by the appellant.