STATE OF KERALA Vs. LAKSHMI AMMA PARVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases 27 cents and 20 cents of land have been acquired for the purpose of the sugar cane development scheme by the Land Acquisition Officer, Chengannur. Not being satisfied with the land value awarded by the Collector, the claimants in these cases approached the Court for reference and the Court below has raised the value by determining it at Rs. 100/- per cent in L. A. R. 95 of 1965. The valuation has been based also on the decision in L. A. R. 34 of 1965 wherein Rs. 100/- per cent was found to be the value. That is why we are disposing off both these cases together. The main document on which the Court relied on for fixing the land value in L. A. R. 34 of 1965 is Ext. P1 and it is marked as Ex. P2 in the other case and that is relevant in these two cases.

(2.) For the claimants in these cases the main reliance, as pointed out, is on Ex. P1 dated 25-1-1963 which is a sale deed just some time before the relevant date of the acquisition with which we are concerned. Pw. 1 in L. A. R. 34 of 1965 had purchased Ex. P1 property of 15 cents for Rs. 150/- per cent He speaks to the nature of the land which has been so purchased and according to him the acquired property is comparatively better because of higher elevation. From the group sketch Ex. D6 it is seen that the situations of the properties are rather similar, both lying south of the Pandalom - Pathanamthitta and both not touching the said road. It is said that the acquired property is accessible by a lane to the said road. That is so with Ex. P1 property also. It is true that Ex. P1 property is nearer to the road than the acquired property. The difference of a few feet may not be material. In the face of the evidence of Pw. 1 and also of one of the claimants as Pw. 3 it is not possible to say that Ex. P1 should not be adopted as the basis for valuing the property, at any rate in the absence of other relevant evidence. Ex. P2 valuation is higher, that being the value in a sale deed for 7 cents of land for Rs. 1,000/-. But that has not been relied upon. That has the advantage of a side road leading to the Pandalom College, and what is more, it is away from the acquired property.

(3.) Possibly if the defendant's documents bad been properly proved we would have considered those documents to see whether we could be more accurate in the determination of the value. Though Exs. D4 and D5 sale deeds marked on the side of the state are relied on as the basis for valuation we are unable to act upon these documents. More than once we have pointed out that it is the duty of the State in land acquisition cases to examine persons connected with execution of documents to prove the documents. The Court cannot act upon copies of registered sale deeds without the evidence of such persons. We have repeatedly alerted the State about the necessity of examining such witnesses. But we have seen that this has not served any material purpose and that the same practice continues. The result is the Government is losing considerably huge amounts of money on this account. Rarely we come across cases where we could act upon basic documents relied on by the State of documents filed in the case as relating to transactions of comparable relevance.