LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER TELLICHERRY Vs. AMSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Land Acquisition Officer representing the State and arises out of the judgment in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, whereby the compensation under the award was enhanced though not to the full extent claimed.

(2.) LAND acquired was situated in Panniyur amsam and desam in Chirakfial Taluk in malabar and stood registered as unoccupied dry and measured 24 acres 95 cents. The acquisition was for the purpose of Pepper Research Station, The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was dated 80-10-1951 and the declaration under section 6 was published in the Gazette on. 6-11-1951. The land was taken possession of under the urgency provision on 7-4-1952. The award which was dated 10-10-1952, valued the land at the rate of Rs. 250 per acre and the few maruthu and other miscellaneous trees standing thereon at Rs. 125. Adding 15 pgr cent solatium the total value came to Rs. 7,316-14-0. In their petition for reference filed on 23-11-1952 the claimants averred that the land was ideally situated on the road side and best suited for pepper cultivation, and further that they had made every arrangement for planting pepper on the property when the acquisition proceedings were started. They went on to add that the prevailing price of similar land in the locality ranged between Rs. 1,000 to 1,500/- per acre but owing to the special adaptability of the land for pepper cultivation the potential value of the land acquired was considerably greater. Still they would be satisfied with the modest estimate of at least Rs. 500 per acre. Learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry before whom the reference came on for trial and disposal, found that the evidence let in by the claimants in respect to the value of other lands in the locality was totally unhelpful. He had nothing to say about the averments made in the petition for reference because the claimants had themselves not testified thereto. Nevertheless he held, rather cryptically, that the compensation awarded was too low having regard to the fact that the land was acquired for working a Pepper research Station and the claimant "was deprived of the potential value for his own purposes. " In the result he fixed the compensation at Rs. 450/-per acre, that is, a little less than the rate of Rs. 500 claimed. Hence the appeal and learned government Pleader urges before us that the case did not admit of the application of the doctrine of 'potential value' and the enhancement of the compensation as granted by the Court below or to any extent is, in the circumstances, not called for. We may say at once that we agree.

(3.) MR. Achuthan Nambiar appearing for the respondents was unable to controvert before us the conclusion of the Court below that the evidence adduced by the claimant as to comparable property nearby, was of little value. Indeed Ext. A-8, assignment deed dated 16-8-1952 in favour of P. W. 3 which alone is at all pertinent, concerns a property in extent just about half an acre though two miles away and certainly that cannot afford a criterion for settling the market value of the large extent of land as here. Besides, P. W. 3 admitted that he purchased it from the point of view of house-site and paid the high value of Rs. 600 in view to its nearness to the agricultural farm on the Talaparamba-Erikkur Road. The short question then is, whether the Court below was right in attaching potential value to the land because of the very purpose for which it was being acquired and so interfering with the compensation under the award.