M.G. GOPINATHAN S/O. M.G. GOVINDAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, KOZHIKODE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against judgment dated 28.01.2015 in L.A.R. No. 149 of 2013.

(2.) An extent of 5.13 Ares of land has been acquired pursuant to notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 10.12.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3,92,660/- per cent. The claimant having objected to the award, the matter was referred to the Sub Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied upon Exhibits A1 to A6. The court below did not rely upon any of the documents. But taking into consideration the the proximity of the land to the nearby institutions and the nearby business concerns, the land value was fixed double that of the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and accordingly refixed the land value at Rs. 7,85,320/-.

(3.) The claimant is in appeal. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that claimant had relied upon Exhibits A1 and A3 documents, which were not considered by the Sub Court in the proper perspective. Exhibit A1 is the judgment in LAR No.39 of 2010 with reference to acquisition of land in terms of Section 4(1) notification dated 29.03.2008. It is contended that the land covered by the said LAR was acquired for widening of Stadium-Puthiyara road, wherein the court below had fixed land value at Rs. 10 lakh per cent and there is no appeal against the said award. Similar is the judgment which is produced as Exhibit A3 relating to LAR No.117/2010 with reference to acquisition for very same purpose, in which the land value awarded is at Rs. 10 lakhs per cent. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner to contend that the land under acquisition also have the very same prominence to the land involved in LAR No.39/2010. It is also contended that the land under acquisition is situated in a more prominent area than the land acquired in LAR No.39/2010 and therefore the court below ought to have relied upon the land value fixed in the said case and provided an enhancement taking into consideration the comparative difference in the date of notification and accordingly fixed the land value.