ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by A, B and C claimants in L.A.R.No.40 of 2007 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. A property jointly owned by the three claimants were acquired as per Notification dated 5.8.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.74,038/- per are. Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants sought reference and the same was adjudicated by the Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur as L.A.R.No.40 of 2007. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Sub Court refixed the land value at Rs.2,00,000/- per are. Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the Sub Court also, the appellants have filed these appeals seeking still enhanced land value.

(2.) THE contention of the appellants is that the market value of the property acquired from the appellants would be much more than what is actually claimed by the appellants even. According to them, this was amply proved by producing Ext.A1 document of the year 1997, wherein, 4.10 Ares of land were sold for a total consideration of Rs.19,59,041/-, which would come to more than Rs.4,00,000/- per are. According to the appellants, the Sub Court refused to rely on Ext.A1 on unsustainable reasons. It is submitted that the appellants are entitled to at least the value in Ext.A1 sale deed.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail. We do not think that the Sub Court went wrong in rejecting Ext.A1 document as the basis for fixing the land value for the property acquired from the appellants. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the learned Sub Judge had given elaborate and cogent reasons as to why Ext.A1 cannot be the basis for fixing the market value of the land acquired from the appellants. AW2 himself admitted that Ext.A1 property is situated on a much more advantageous position than the acquired land. The evidence of AW2 would also suggest that the consideration fixed in Ext.A1 for the property in question is a fancy price. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Sub Court regarding Ext.A1 document as the basis for fixing the land value for the property acquired from the appellants.