SOUTHA BEEVI W/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants in LAR No.54/1995. An extent of 12.95 Ares of land was acquired pursuant to notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on 18/1/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) fixed the land value after categorizing the land into three different categories. 2.08 Ares of land was categorized under Category 2, that is dry land between Edappally Kotta and Railway track. The land value fixed was Rs. 6,674/- per Are. 5.22 Ares of land came under Category No.4 which was treated as reclaimed wet land and land value awarded was Rs. 2,428/- per Are. In respect of 5.65 Ares, the property was treated as a road and accordingly categorized under Category 6. Only an amount of Rs. 100/- was fixed as compensation for the said land.

(2.) Claimants objected to the award and the matter was referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. Initially, the reference was answered confirming the award passed by the LAO. The reference was restored to enable the claimants to adduce evidence on condition that the claimants will not be entitled for interest for the delay period of 2208 days if the compensation is enhanced. Accordingly, evidence was adduced in the case. The claimants relied upon Ext.A2 certified copy of the judgment in LAR No.55/1995 of Sub Court, Kollam. The power of attorney holder of the claimants was examined as AW1. Respondents produced Exts.R1 to R3, but no witnesses were examined. Reference Court found that Ext.A2 judgment cannot be relied upon as the property covered by Ext.A2 was not comparable with the land under acquisition. The Court below therefore enhanced the land value in respect of category No.2 at Rs. 4,338/- per Are, for category No.4 at Rs. 1,574/- per Are and for category No.6 at Rs. 65 per Are over and above the amount fixed by the LAO.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimants while impugning the aforesaid judgment contended that Ext.A2 judgment ought to have been taken note of by the Reference Court to fix the land value. Ext.A2 judgment relates to acquisition for the very same purpose. Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 30/9/1992. LAO fixed the land value at Rs. 10,300/- per Are for 3.90 Ares. The Sub Court enhanced the value to Rs. 24,700/- per Are. It is submitted that as per the evidence of AW1, the land covered by Ext.A2 is situated 100 metres west of the land and therefore the land involved in the present case is comparable with the land acquired in terms of Ext.A2 judgment. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2017) 4 SCC 717] , Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 3 SCC 751] , Kunjeliyamma Kuryan v. State of Kerala and another (2017 (1) KHC 111) , Ittimathu Pavu v. State (1951 KHC 75) , Sreedharan v. State of Kerala (1967 KHC 327) , State of Kerala v. C.T. Hashim (2009 KHC 1342) and Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Haryana (2016 KHC 6169) . These judgments had been placed for the purpose of contending the manner in which the land acquisition references are to be answered and how the market value has to be fixed. It is argued that even in respect of Ext.A2 judgment, though the notification is a few months after the date of notification in the present case, still, the said judgment can be relied upon to fix the market value of the land in the present case. It is also argued that in certain connected cases, requisitioning authority had settled various cases by paying additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- per cent for the claimants in order to have a finality of the issue.