MUNDAYATTU VALAPPIL ANANDAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. His property in Kalliyasseri village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 11/04/1997 for the purpose of doubling of the railway track from Mahe to Payyannur. The Land Acquisition Officer, relying on the basis document, awarded land value for five cents of land at the rate of Rs.4,370/- per cent. No land value was awarded for the remaining extent of seven cents. Compensation was awarded for those seven cents by capitalising the income from the thirty coconut trees which stood on that portion of the property. A total amount of Rs.32,250/- was awarded as compensation for the 7 cents. Being not satisfied with the award, the appellant facilitated reference under Section 18. The case was tried along with other reference cases and the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5 and the oral evidence of AW1 to 3. AW3 was the appellant herein. While AW1 and 2 were the claimants in other two cases. The only document reflecting higher value for the land was Ext.A3 sale deed dated 01/04/1998. The learned Sub Judge did not place any reliance on Ext.A3.

(2.) APART from the above mentioned items, there was Ext.X1 report submitted by an Advocate Commissioner on the basis of a local inspection. The Advocate Commissioner recommended that the value of the property under acquisition will be Rs.11,000/- per cent. This recommendation was discarded by the reference court for the reason that the Commissioner's recommendation is not based on the value reflected in any sale deed. Ultimately, the learned Sub Judge would answer the reference confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer.

(3.) DRAWING our attention to Ext.A3, Mr. Pareeth submitted that though a post notification document, Ext.A3 will show that the value of the property in the locality was 25,000/- per cent on 01/04/98. According to him, there were 30 yielding coconut trees on the portion of the property and Rs.32,250/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for those trees by adopting the method of capitalisation of income is inadequate.