JOSEPH CYRIAC DIED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the claimant. The acquisition relates to property situated within the limits of the municipal town of Kottayam. The relevant notification under S.4(1) was on 26-4-1998. The property was acquired for the purpose of widening a lane. The appellant claimant was the owner of a total extent of 14 cents. The above property was the residential as well as office property of the appellant. From a portion of the above larger holding of the appellant the present property having an extent of 0.42 Ares was acquired. The present property was having direct frontage of the lane only while the entire holding of the appellant is having frontage of Good Shepherd road also. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent. The reference did not rely on the evidence adduced by the claimant. But purely on considerations of importance of locality granted a nominal enhancement of Rs. 5,000/- per cent to the appellant.

(2.) Before the reference court, documentary evidence consisted on Ext. A1, on the side of the appellant / claimant and Ext. R1 group sketch. The oral evidence consisted of testimony of AW 1, appellant and AW 2 who was the assignor of Ext. A1. There was absolutely no counter oral evidence on the side of the Government. Ext. A1 is a sale deed which pertains to property which had direct frontage of a PWD road. A1 revealed land value of Rs. 87,000/- per cent. According to the Government and the learned Subordinate Judge, Ext. A1 had direct frontage of K.K. Road, a State highway, though according to the learned counsel for the appellant there is no evidence to hold that it was the frontage of K.K. Road that Ext. A1 was having. The reference court was not inclined to place reliance on Ext. A1. The reasons stated by the reference court is that Ext. A1 property and the acquired property are not comparable. In fact, two reasons weighed with the reference court for arriving at such a conclusion. Firstly, the acquired property was having frontage of a lane only. Secondly, the A1 property was having frontage of K.K. Road and according to the learned Subordinate Judge is one of the main roads in the municipal town. Now coming to the reason that weighed by the learned reference court first, i.e., the acquired property was having frontage of only a lane. It is to be noted that the consistent case of the appellant in the cross examination is that the acquired property was only a portion of a larger holding of the appellant having a total extent of roughly 14 cents and that larger holding was having frontage of Good Shepherd Road also. Since the acquired property was enjoyed by the appellant as part of a larger holding, the other portions of which admittedly enjoy the frontage of Good Shepherd Road, the learned Subordinate Judge had to proceed on the basis that, atleast from the point of view of the appellant the acquired property was also having a frontage of the Good Shepherd road. This court held through T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala ( 1967 KLT 1067 ) that while considering the question whether the acquired properties were having road frontage, the enquiry should also be whether the acquired properties were having road frontage through the other properties owned by the claimant. Moreover, it was come out in evidence through the unrebutted oral evidence of AW 1 that the property was situated in the heart land of Kottayam town. The distance between the acquired property and the Malayala Manorama Corporate Office, M.D. School, Basellius College was only less than 100 feet. Even the civil station and District Court Campus are situated at a walkable distance from the acquired property. In fact, I find that there is absolutely no cross examination on the evidence of AW 1 regarding the importance of his property and its proximity to the various institutions and establishments in Kottayam town aforementioned to the acquired property. Even though, I find force in the submission of Sri. Raya Shenoi that there is no legal evidence on the basis of which the learned subordinate judge could say that Ext. A1 property has direct frontage of the K.K. Road, I am not inclined to vary the finding of the Sub Judge that A1 property was having direct frontage of K.K. Road. To that extent, the Subordinate Judge is justified in her view that the acquired property did not have the same value as that of A1 property. But I am of the view that there must be some correlation between the values of different parcels of land situated within a given local area, within the limits of a given local authority. It is evident that the acquired property was situated in a very important locality of the Kottayam municipality. It was also evident that the acquired property was having both commercial and residential potentialities. It is not suggested at all to AW 2 the assigner of Ext. A1 that Ext. A1 is an artificial document or that A1 does not reflect the correct market value. There is no cross examination on the further evidence of AW 2 that the distance between acquired property and the A1 property is only 3/4 of a furlong. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in rejecting Ext. A1 altogether.

(3.) This was a case where there was good evidence on the basis of which the court could have fixed the land value. The court rejected the entire evidence and went by guess work alone. Of course it is fairly settled that in land acquisition cases determination of compensation can to a certain be on the basis of guess work. But the guess must be a good one. If there is evidence, the guess must be bounded on the evidence. Going by guess work and ignoring the evidence altogether the court fixed only Rs. 5,000/- per cent above the rate fixed by the officer. Since there was good evidence which would enable the learned Subordinate Judge to refix the land value in the form of Ext. A1, AW 2 and also the unrebutted evidence of AW 1, refixation should have been done on the basis of such evidence.