THAYYIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL JAYARAJ Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L A )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in L.A.R.No.148/2000 before the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the court for the land acquired from him as per a notification dated 1.11.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisition officer fixed land value at Rs. 2963/- per cent. By the impugned award, which is a common award in L.A.R.Nos.148/2000, 187/2000 and 191/2000, the Sub Court enhanced the land value to Rs. 4000/- per cent, drawing a distinction between the property in this case and the properties involved in the other two L.A.Rs. for which, land value has been fixed at Rs. 7,500/- per cent.

(2.) The appellant submits that the appellant had produced Exts.A1 and A4 documents, which are documents, which were executed in 1997, in which, the land value is Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 8,666/- per cent respectively. The Commissioner appointed by the court has inspected those properties and has stated in his report that Exts.A1 and A4 properties are similar to the property acquired from the appellant. Even the reference court has held that in numerous other references in respect of the lands acquired under the same notification, the land value was fixed at Rs. 7,500/- per cent. The Sub Court held that that value can be safely adopted for the land in L.A.R.Nos. 187/2000 and 191/2000. Although the Sub Court has held that the land in this appeal is different from the lands in L.A.R.Nos.187 and 191 of 2000, no reasons have been given to draw the distinction when the Sub Court himself had held in paragraph 17 of the award that all the three acquired properties are having direct road access to Kannur-Kuthuparamba main road. It is also submitted that the Commissioner has also reported that the acquired property and Exts.A1 & A4 properties also lie by the side of the same road. Therefore, the appellant would contend that the appellant is entitled to at least Rs. 7500/- per cent as land value.

(3.) This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader, who submits that in respect of other properties acquired under the same notification, only 50% enhancement has been granted, in which case, the amount awarded by the court below is just and reasonable as land value.