SUNITHA K. E. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in L.A.R. No. 22/2008. The claimant is the appellant and the acquisition and requisitioning authorities are respectively the first and second respondents, in this appeal. An extent of 9.12 Ares (22.53 cents) of property comprised in Survey No. 666/10 of Kakkanad Village was acquired from the appellant for the purpose of expansion of Info Park. S.4(1) notification was issued in that regard on 16/01/2006. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, viz., Rs.48,900.00 per Are (Rs.19798.57 per cent), the appellant received the compensation under protest and sought for a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court on evaluation of the evidence, enhanced the land value to Rs.1,42,288.00 per Are (Rs.57606/- per cent). It is still dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Reference Court and seeking further enhancement that the captioned appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Before the Reference Court, the appellant - claimant got herself examined as AW1 besides getting examined the Village Officer as AW2 and the Advocate Commissioner who filed a report therein as AW3. Exts.A1 to A4 were got marked. Exts.C1 and C1A are respectively the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the sketch of the acquired property. On the side of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exts.R1 to R6 were got marked. Exts.A1 to A4 are the copies of the sale deeds relating certain properties sold out from the nearby area either immediately prior to the S.4(1) notification or thereafter. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No. 2820/05 of Thrikkakkara Sub Registry dated 13/06/2005. Going by the same, the centage value is Rs.11,47,44/-. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No. 3581/05 of the same Sub Registry dated 16/08/2005 and going by the same, the centage value is Rs.1,15,000.00. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No. 526/06 of the same Sub Registry dated 13/02/2006 wherein the land value per cent is shown as Rs.1.87 lakhs. Ext.A4 dated 24/03/2007 is the certified copy of sale deed No. 1406/07 of same Sub Registry relating the sale of a property subsequent to the 4(1) notification whereby an extent of 39.60 Ares of properties comprised in Survey No. 118 of Thrikkakkara village was sold for an amount of Rs.4.45 crores, i.e., approximately, Rs.4.5 lakhs per cent. The claimant attempted to establish that there is steady increase in the land value in that area by producing Exts.A1 to A4. That apart, through Ext.C1 report, the appellant attempted to establish the commercial importance of the locality. Before the Reference Court, I.A. No. 636/2010 was filed with the prayer to look into the judgment in LAR No. 131/2008. The acquired property in LAR No. 131/2008 also belonged to the appellant - claimant and it is lying just opposite to the property involved in this case and it was produced to drive home the point that the nature of the properties involved in LAR No. 131/2008 and in the case on hand, is the same. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Reference Court though relied on Ext.A2 and had also taken into account the fact that the property involved in LAR No. 131/2008 is also a property acquired from the appellant himself and lying near to the property involved in the case on hand, declined to grant enhancement of land value at par with the rate of enhancement made in LAR No. 131/2008 taking note of the land value in Ext.A2. The Reference Court found that the property involved in the case on hand is a reclaimed land unlike the property involved in Ext.A2 and therefore, it could not fetch the same land value as has been given in the case of property involved in Ext.A2. Thereupon Reference Court effected deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2 document while fixing the land value of the property involved in the case on hand. The Reference Court found that the property involved in Ext.A2 is a dry land having frontage of a public road. At the same time, the land acquired in this case is a reclaimed land and it lies on the side of a private road. Evidently, it was based on such consideration that 50% deduction in land value was effected by the Reference Court. Essentially, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the Reference Court is correct in placing reliance on Ext.A2 document and taking it as a comparable document for the purpose of assessing the land value of the acquired property involved in this appeal, there is absolutely no justification in effecting deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2 and fix it as the land value of the property involved in this appeal. In short, it is contended that as per first proviso to S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant is entitled to the market value of the land on the date of publication of S.4(1) notification and in the light of Exts.A1 to A4 documents, she is entitled to get enhanced compensation above the rate granted in LAR No. 131/2008.

(3.) It is to be noted that the first respondent, the acquisition authority, filed Cross Objection No. 78/2013 in this appeal. It is contended therein that the Reference Court, as per the impugned judgment, granted exorbitant and unreasonable enhancement of land value. It is the further contention that Ext.R4 is the very document under which the claimant - appellant purchased the property in question and going by the same, the centage value is only Rs.10,000.00. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the appellant could not be heard to contend that the property was actually under - valued in Ext.R4 as a ground to substantiate her claim for enhanced compensation. It is also contended that in the light of S.92 of the Evidence Act, it is impermissible to adduce evidence to contradict the recitals in one's own documents. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the land value of the property is much more than Rs.10,000.00 could not be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that for the purpose of considering the question of enhancement, the relevant documents which are to be looked into in the light of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act is the document pertaining to the period of S.4(1) notification. The learned counsel also contended that in the light of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, 2002 KHC 82, certain other factors also have to be taken into account for fixing the land value on the basis of the comparable sales method of evaluation of land. Thus, it is obvious from the rival contentions that while the appellant - claimant contends that the Reference Court erred in effecting deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2, respondents 1 and 2 contend that the Reference Court had virtually erred in relying on Ext.A2 and to grant enhancement over and above the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended by respondents 1 and 2 that a perusal of the document by which the appellant purchased the property and the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer would reveal that almost 100% enhancement was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for seeking further enhancement relying on Ext.A2 or based on the judgment in LAR No. 131/2008.