FR A. JOHNSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,L.A (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant in LAR No.44/2004 by which reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was rejected by the Reference Court observing that claimant is not entitled for any enhanced compensation. The judgment proceeds on the basis that the documents relied upon by the claimant have not been accepted for the purpose of fixing the enhanced compensation. Further the Reference Court observes that originally there were two claimants and counsel had filed vakalath for both of them. Later the first claimant filed an application to delete the second claimant from the party array. The Court found that it being a suspicious circumstance, there is no reason to grant any enhanced compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Award was passed in favour of the appellant and the appellant himself has sought for reference and therefore the Court was bound to fix the market value of land. In this case, Court had observed that there is suspicious circumstances and therefore there is no reason to fix the compensation. It is submitted that in similar matters, enhanced compensation has already been granted and the appellant therefore seeks for an opportunity to adduce evidence in the case.

(2.) Having regard to the fact that the matter is referred to the Court under Section 18, the Reference Court is bound to fix the market value of land. Once it is found that the market value is more than the Award amount, the Court will have to pass an Award and if it is found that the market value is less than the Award amount, the Award has to be sustained. In a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court has to apply its mind and fix the market value. This aspect has been completely ignored by the Sub Court and while proceeding on the basis that Exts.A1 and A2 cannot be relied upon, it ought to have arrived at the market value of land on the basis of the available materials. As far as the finding in paragraph 7 of the judgment is concerned, we do not think that it is very much relevant when the award itself has been passed in favour of the appellant herein.