BASHEER AHAMMED Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment in LAR No. 96/2006 by which the Sub Court granted an enhancement of land value with reference to acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The 3rd respondent is also one of the claimant. An extent of 17.21 Ares of land belonging to the appellant/claimant was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 1.12.2001. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value @ Rs. 32,123/- relying upon Ext.R2 document dated 25.7.2000. The claimants having objected to the award, the matter was referred to Sub Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Sub Court after considering the evidence adduced in the matter refixed the land value @ Rs. 36,941/- per Are.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Sub Court completely erred in not placing reliance upon Exts. A1 to A4 documents which would prove a very high market value of land in the locality. Further there was no basis for placing reliance upon Exhibit R2 the basic document as the said property was not at all comparable with the land under acquisition. Based on the Advocate Commissioner report Ext.X6, it is argued that the acquired land is situated by the side of a municipal road known as Nechikutty M.S.P Camp road. The property is 100 metres away from Kavungal junction in Kozhikode - Palakkad National Highway itself. Several establishments, Government as well as Commercial institutions are situated very near to the aforesaid property. Exts.A2 to A4 documents relates to property purchased by a society in the year 1995 wherein a small extent of land having an extent of 3 cents each had been purchased @ Rs. 60,000/- per cent. Ext.A1 is produced to prove that there was a hike in the market value of land over a short period wherein the centage value shown in the year 2003 is Rs. 90,000/- per cent. On this basis, it is contended that there is high potentiality for the land which had been completely ignored by the Reference Court and therefore the land value ought to have been fixed at a much higher rate. The learned counsel submits that the appellant is limiting the claim for the aforesaid land at Rs. 25,000/- per cent.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the land under acquisition is comparable with the basic land covered by Ext.R2 document. The only difference is that the property involved in the basic land is by the side of a mud road whereas the acquired land is by the side of a tar road. The Land Acquisition Officer, having considered the respective comparability, had given 30% enhancement to the value as shown in Ext.R2 and accordingly fixed the land value at Rs. 32,123/- per Are. The court below granted a further enhancement of Rs. 15,000/-. It is argued that there is no reason to grant any further enhancement, and that Exts. A1 to A4 documents are not comparable as their properties covered by it is situated in the heart of commercial town.