STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O. Vs. THRESSIA W/O. JOSE, MOONUMAKKAYIL (THEKKEDATHU), KUDUKKACHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment in LAR No.28/99 of the Sub Court, Pala. An extent of 8.63 Ares of land in Re-survey No.203/17- in Block No.20 of Vallichira village in Meenachil Taluk was acquired for widening of the road by virtue of Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 02/01/2006. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting land value at Rs. 8,530/- per Are. The claimant objected to the award and the matter was referred to the Sub Court for fixing the market value of land. Before the Sub Court, the claimant filed a claim statement claiming an amount of Rs. 21,57,500/- for the property and loss of income of Rs. 1,39,000/- along with statutory benefits. She also claimed Rs. 5,000/- as value of coconut trees and Rs. 15,000/- as value of a teak tree. Before the Reference Court, the claimant was examined as AW1. She relied upon Exts.A1 to A3. Respondents produced Ext.R1 series reference file. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1 and Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) rough sketch was marked. The Reference Court having considered the entire matter, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 62,000/- per Are. Direction was also issued to pay Rs. 75,000/- being the value of improvements. In the appeal, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is no basis fixing the land value at an exorbitant rate. The direction to pay additional value of improvements was also unsustainable and no such claim has been raised by the claimant.

(2.) Heard learned Government Pleader and also learned Counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent.

(3.) Perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Reference Court relied upon Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is a document dated 12/03/1998 being the sale deed executed by one Abraham in favour of Sri.A.N.Sunil Kumar. As per Ext.A1, the property assigned is having an extent of 1.21 Ares and the value is at the rate of Rs. 61,983/- per Are. The contention urged by the learned Government Pleader is that there is no material to indicate the comparability of Ext.A1 property with that of the acquired property. Ext.A2 is a sale deed dated 19/01/2004 registered as document No.176/04. As per the said document, an extent of 1.82 Ares is assigned for a consideration which will come to Rs. 59,066/- per Are. The Commission report produced in the case would show that the Advocate Commissioner had formed an opinion that Ext.A2 property is comparable with that of the acquired property. In regard to Ext.A1 property, there is no reference in the Commission report or in the evidence given by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had reported that Ext.A2 property is 50 M away from the acquired property and it is comparable. The distance from the main town in regard to the acquired property as well as Ext.A2 property has also been clearly indicated by the Advocate Commissioner. However, it could be seen that Ext.A2 document is dated 19/01/2004 and Section 4(1) notification has been issued only on 02/01/2006.