SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. CHANNADIYIL ABDUL GAFOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a sale deed executed three years prior to the publication of Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of market value by the reference court is one of the main questions to be considered in this case.

(2.) Market value is the price, which the owner of a property willing and not obliged to sell it might reasonably accept for it from one of a number of willing purchasers who are not obliged to buy it and with whom he has been bargaining openly for its value and purchase. Unconscionable bargains, in view of the requirement of the owner either to sell his property or for the buyer to buy a land at any cost are to be excluded. The Kerala Land Acquisition Manual, in the prescribed guidelines for the Land Acquisition Officers has provided that in fixing the market value of the acquired land all the sale deeds executed within a period of 3 years prior to the publication of the Section 3(1) notification Under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 - in the same line of Section 4(1) notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Central Act) relating to lands within a radious of 3 miles should be examined for preparing the basis for valuation and all documents relating to similar and similarly situated lands are to be discussed in the award to substantiate the acceptance of a particular document and rejecting the rest. There are several other guidelines as well. But for the purpose of the instant case, we need only consider the application of only the guidelines as indicated above. Under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector has to pass an award after conducting the required enquiries as to the compensation payable to a claimant. In determining the amount of compensation, the Collector is bound by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act regarding the matters to be considered in determining the compensation and matters to be neglected in the process. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person who has not accepted the award is entitled to request the matter to be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and under Section 26, it is the court which is to pass an award determining the market value and the total compensation payable to a claimant. To the extent relevant, the provisions (Sections 23, 24 and 26) read as follows:

(3.) A reading of the provisions would show that as far as the reference court is concerned, matters to be taken note of in fixing the market value of the land and other compensation payable to the claimant are provided under Section 23 and matters to be neglected are provided under Section 24. There are no other guidelines for the court either in fixing the market value or in determining the total compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer may be guided by any administrative instruction in the matter. But such guidelines are not binding on the reference court. The reference court is not sitting in appeal over the award passed by the Collector under Section 12 of the Act. The court is actually determining the market value of the property and other compensation payable, under Section 23 of the Act. Examination of documents executed within three years of the preliminary notification and within a radius of 3 Kms. etc. only are administrative guidelines intended to aid the Land Acquisition Officer. They are not at all binding on the reference court. The court shall not be guided by such administrative instruction issued to the Land Acquisition Officers. The court is bound to look into the evidence available on record and fix the market value of the property and determine the compensation. That is an original exercise to be done by the court. If a document executed several years prior to the preliminary notification is produced before the reference court and if the same reflects the market value of the property prevailing in the area at the relevant time, there is no justification in discarding it for the only reason that the same was executed more than three years prior to the preliminary notification. Keeping in mind the above legal position, we shall now examine the facts of this case.