STATE OF KERALA Vs. VARKEY MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise from the judgment in L. A. Rs. 118/77, 120/77, 121/77, 135/77 and 235/77. Different bits of land were acquired from the respondents for the purpose of Mangattoor minor distributory canal and also for the construction of Poothrikkara minor distributory canal. In L. A. R. No. 180 of 1980 S.3(1) notification was published on 30-3-1976 and possession was taken on 20/12/1975. In LAA Nos. 181, 182 and 183 of 1980 S.3(1) notification was published on 24-2-1976 and possession was taken on 20/12/1975. In LAA No. 259/80 the 3(1) notification was published on 29-6-1976 and possession was taken on 20/05/1976. The respondents in all these appeals except in LAA 259/80 claimed Rs. 600/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer in LAA Nos. 181, 182 and 183 of 1980 fixed the compensation at Rs.275/- per Are. In LAA 180 of 1980 the respondent was allowed to get compensation only Rs. 215 per Are and in LAA 183/80 the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Are. The respondents had claimed enhanced rate of compensation and the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Court. Except in LAA 259/80 in all other cases court fixed the land value at Rs. 925/- per Are. This would work out to Rs. 375/- per cent.

(2.) The respondents contended before the Land Acquisition Court that the acquired plots of land are situate in a very important locality and there are Schools, College, Hospital, Block Office and other commercial establishments nearby and the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. According to the "respondents the acquired land is situated in between two important junctions namely, Kolencherry and Kadayiruppu. The respondents also contended that the entire property has road frontage and there are two other public pathways passing very near the acquired land. Exts. A1 to A3 documents were relied on by the respondents and one of the respondents were examined as AW 4. Three other witnesses were examined to prove that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was incorrect. The Land Acquisition Court considered Exts. A1 to A3 documents and came to the conclusion that Rs. 925/- per Are would be the proper and reasonable compensation for the land acquired in L. A. Rs. 118, 120, 121 and 235 of 1977. The court however rejected the enhancement prayed for by the respondent in LAA 259 of 1980 for the reason that she had not filed any claim before the Land Acquisition Court in pursuance of the notice issued to her under S.9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) Land Acquisition Officer placed reliance on Exts. R17, R18 and R19 to base bis conclusion regarding the compensation payable to the respondents. These three documents have not been proved by examining the competent persons. The court below rightly declined to act on the basis of the consideration recited in these documents. Ext. A1 is a copy of sale deed dated 16/08/1971. The vendor was examined as AW 1. The vendee therein is AW 3. But AW 3 has not spoken anything regarding Ext. A1 document. The evidence of AW 1 is to the effect that he sold 10 cents of property to AW 3 as per Ext. A1 sale deed and the total consideration received by him was Rs. 6,000/-. The evidence of AW 1 clearly shows that he is a highly interested witness. His attempt was to show that the acquired land was lying in an important place, whereas Ext A1 property was in a remote area having no road frontage. His statement regarding the proximity of the acquired land to the Alwaye-Perumbavoor road is also incorrect in view of the evidence of Rw. I, According to RW 1 Kolencherry-Perumbavoor road is about 100 ft. away from the property acquired in L. A. R. 118 of 1977. whereas AW 1 would say that the Kolencherry-Perumbavoor road is just on the southern side of the acquired land. The evidence of AW 1 also would go to show that Ext. A1 property is near the Kolencherry junction. This also was specifically suggested to the witness and he admitted that the distance from Ext. A1 property to the Kolencherry junction is only half of the distance between the Kolencherry junction and the acquired land. This would clearly indicate that A1 valuation cannot be taken as the basis for the compensation payable to the respondents.