K.G. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of two Land Acquisition Cases relating to adjoining plots of land. As per the proceedings in L.A.C. No. 35/1119 on the file of the Division Peishkar, Trivandrum, an extent of 1 acre and 02 cents of garden land comprised in Survey No. 3383 of Madathuvilagom Pakuthy was acquired by the State. From the adjoining Sy. No. 33S2 of the same Pakuthy a plot of 29,631 cents of garden land was also acquired by the State as per the proceedings in L.A.C. No. 37 of 1119. For both these plots the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per cent besides separate values awarded for the trees and buildings that existed on the plots. The owners of, the respective plots claimed a much higher value by way of compensation and accordingly the two cases were referred to the District Court at Trivandrum for decision. L.A. Reference Case No. 12/1120 of that Court was the reference from L.A. Case No. 35/1119 and L.A. Reference Case No. 13/1120 was the reference from L.A. Case No. 37/1119. For the plot involved in L.A. Rel. Case No. 12/1120 the District Judge awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 100/ - per cent for the southern half and at Rs. 75/ - per cent for the northern half, as land value. The value of the building in that property was enhanced from Rs. 84 to Rs. 200. In other respects the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was left undisturbed.

(2.) A .S. No. 233/1122: Ex. VII is the group sketch prepared by Pw. 4 showing the situation of the property acquired in this case with reference to other properties lying all around it. Ex. A is a similar sketch prepared and produced at the instance of the Plaintiff -Appellant. So far as the situation of the several items of properties shown in Exts. A and VII is concerned, there is practically no difference between the two sketches. But Ex. A gives greater details in a more prominent manner. This sketch was prepared by Pw. 2 who is a retired Surveyor and he has sworn to the correctness of the details shown in it. His evidence has not been challenged on behalf of the State. It is seen from Exts. A and VII that the plot of 1 acre and 62 cents of garden land comprised in Sy. No. 3383 lies on the northern side of the Museum and the Public Gardens at Trivandrum. The property covered by S. No. 3382 also lies on the northern side of the Public Gardens and just to the east of the plot covered by Sy. No. 3303. These two plots were acquired by the State for the purpose of extending the Public Gardens towards the north. Ex. VI is the Mahasar prepared in connection with the acquisition of the plot comprised in Sy. No. 3383 and it describes the condition of the property at the time of the acquisition. It is seen from the Mahazer that the property was a garden land at the time of the acquisition and that it was lying as one plot.

(3.) THE arbitrary manner in which the lower Court divided the property into two for the purpose of valuation has undoubtedly caused considerable prejudice to the owner of the property. Such a method of valuation in land acquisition cases, which is technically known as valuation by belts by artificially dividing the property into belts or plots, is generally discouraged for the obvious reason that it involves a considerable extent of arbitrariness. Even while attempting to fix the value of the property for the purpose of awarding compensation on the basis of the evidence disclosing the price at which other properties in the neighbourhood possessing similar advantages were sold at about the time of the acquisition, a certain degree of arbitrariness is inevitable. But care has to be taken to keep the scope of such arbitrariness in the matter of fixing the value of the property to the lowest level possible. That is the reason why the method of valuation by belts, which is bound to be arbitrary and artificial, is generally condemned and discouraged. The risk involved in attempting at such a method of valuation by belts is amply borne out by the circumstances of this particular case where the property is said to be gradually sloping from south to north. On account of such a difference in the level of the property the lower Court has chosen to draw a line at the middle and to divide the property into the southern and northern halves. Apparently there is nothing to justify the drawing of the line at the middle of the property. If the division is to be made on the basis of the difference in the level of the property, any number of lines can toe drawn from east to west and the property can be divided into numerous belts because of the gradual lowering of the level of the property we proceed from south to north.