C.SREEDHARAN NAIR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants in L.A.R. Nos. 228/2003, 249/2003 and 231/2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Koyilandy, are the appellants herein. The properties belonging to the appellants were acquired by the State as per notification dated 23.11.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.5,173/- per cent uniformly for the entire properties which consist of garden land and wet land. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act. After reference, the Sub Court, after evaluating the evidence, categorised the properties acquired into three, viz. garden land with road access, garden land with no road access and wet land and re-fixed the land value at Rs.9,000/- per cent for garden land with road access, Rs. 8,000/- with garden land with no road access and Rs. 7,225/- for the wet land. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the appellants have come before this Court with the above appeals.

(2.) THE property in L.A.R. Nos. 228/2003 and 249/2003 are garden lands. The property involved in L.A.R.No. 231/2003 is partiallt garden land and partiallt wet land.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that they have produced Exts. A1 and A2 documents to prove that the land value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very loss and as per Ext. A1, 14.40 cents of land was sold @ Rs. 15,972/- per cent and as per Ext. A2, wet land was sold @ Rs.9,289.60 per cent. The Commissioner also reported that the basic land is not a comparable land with the land acquired and the land acquired is in a better position than the basic land. According to the appellants, the Commissioner also inspected the property covered by Exts. A1 and A2 and came to the conclusion that they are comparable properties. In spite of that, the Sub Judge has not relied on Ext. A1 to determine the land value mentioned but relied on Ext. A2, which is a wet land and fixed the market value of the property. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer has not made any difference in respect of the property, whereas the Sub Court has categorized the property into three, which is also not proper. According to the learned counsel for appellants, the lower court ought to have taken at least the market value mentioned in Ext. A1 as market value for the land acquired.