PARVATHI ANTHARJANAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Land Acquisition Appeals are filed by claimants B to H in L.A.R.Nos.103, 104 and 105 of 2006 before the Sub Court Manjeri. A large extent of 14.93 acres of land was acquired from the appellants. The land was acquired for the purpose of establishing an electricity power station for the 2nd respondent- Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.3.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer made a classification of the property into A block and B block on the ground that A block had road frontage, which B block did not, and fixed Rs. 6565.00 per cent as compensation for A block property and Rs. 5252.00 for B block properties. Dissatisfied with the fixation of compensation, the petitioners sought reference, which resulted in the land acquisition references in question. The appellants took the contention that the artificial classification by the land acquisition officer into A block and B block properties is unsustainable, insofar as the entire property was lying contiguously as one block. The entire property had road frontage, whereas on account of the artificial classification of the land acquisition officer, part of the properties were rendered without road frontage. According to the appellants, the entire property should have been classified as one single plot without artificial classification as A block and B block. The appellants took the contention that as per Ext.A1 sale deed, 7.5 cents of property was sold for a total consideration of of Rs. 3,50,000.00, which property was in the same locality, but with less commercial importance than the acquired property. Instead of considering that property for the purpose of fixation of compensation, the reference court considered the basis land taken by the land acquisition officer for fixation of the market value of the property. According to the appellants, that property was a very small bit of land, which cannot be the basis for fixation of compensation for this large extent of land. But instead of considering Ext.A1 document for the purpose of fixation of land value, reference court simply gave 25% increase to both properties taking the price of the basis land as the basic value. According to the appellants, the method adopted by the reference court is totally unsustainable. The contention of the appellants is that the reference court itself found that the basis land cannot be the basis for fixation of land value because of the fact that it is only a small bit of land, in which, no building can be constructed and is of irregular shape. But despite the same, the reference court took that as the basis and increased the land value by 25%, which cannot be the method for fixation of land value in land acquisition references, is their contention.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader submits that the reference court has correctly appreciated the evidence adduced before the court and has come to the conclusion that the compensation can be fixed by increasing the land value by 25% more than the basis land. It is pointed out that that method has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.667, 670, 735 & 751 of 2010 in respect of the same acquisition in appeals filed by the requisitioning authority, the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment of the reference court.

(3.) WE are of opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.667, 670, 735 & 751 of 2010 cannot bind the appellants herein insofar as those appeals were disposed of without issuing notice to or hearing the appellants in these appeals. Apart from the same, the requisitioning authority, who filed the appeals themselves withdrew the appeals and therefore, it cannot be stated that the same operates as resjudicata for these appeals. We are of opinion that the method adopted by the reference court is faulty. After holding that the basis land relied upon by the land acquisition officer cannot be the basis for fixation of land value of the acquired land, the reference court could not have fixed the compensation by simply adding 25% to the value per cent of the basis land. As is clear from the impugned judgment, the reference court itself found that the basis land did not have proper access, it was a small bit of land, in which, no construction could be made in accordance with the building rules and that the same was of a irregular shape. In such circumstances, when other evidence is available, the reference court ought to have considered that other evidence available on record to determine the land value, which has not been done in this case. Although Ext.A1 document has been mentioned in the judgment, there is absolutely no discussion in the judgment as to why that document cannot be looked into for determining the land value of the acquired land.