STATE OF KERALA Vs. HASHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are preferred by the Government. The cases pertain to acquisition of land in Nagaram Village of Kozhikode City pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 26/11/1993. The purpose of the acquisition was straightening of the curve of Muthalakkulam junction and related purposes. LAA Nos. 1774/08, 2382/08, 1925/08 and 1640/08 arise out of a common judgment of the reference Court in LAR Nos. 194/2000, 198/2000, 214/2000, 215/2000, 218/2000 and 48/98. LAA Nos. 397/09 and 266/09 arise out of a common judgment in LAR Nos. 308/98, 246/98 and 212/2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.41,851/- per cent. The reference Court in the first instance on the basis of the evidence which came on record re - fixed the land value at Rs.2 lakhs per cent. The Government preferred appeals and this Court set aside the judgment under appeal and remanded the LARs to the reference Court taking the view that one of the judgments which were relied on by the reference Court was already set aside and remanded to the reference Court. The impugned judgments have been passed pursuant to the above judgment of remand. After remand, claimants in two cases took out fresh commissions and the claimant in one case produced certified copy of the Jenmom sale deed dated 12/03/1999 executed by one Muhammed Aslam in favour of one Aboobacker reflecting a land value of Rs.5 lakhs per cent. The advocate commissioners appointed on the basis of the commission applications filed by two of the claimants inspected the properties under acquisition as well as the property covered by the above mentioned document which was marked as Ext. A2 in the common judgment in LAR Nos. 194/2000, 198/2000, 214/2000, 215/2000, 218/2000 & 48/98. The commissioners reported in very clear terms that having regard the nearness to the important areas and institutions in Calicut city and also in terms of commercial potentiality, the properties under acquisition were superior to the properties covered by Ext. A2. The advocate commissioners recommended for award of land value at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per cent to Rs.6 lakhs per cent for the properties under acquisition. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to accept the recommendation of the advocate commissioners regarding market value of the property. The Court below however, would accept the uncontroverted evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants including the commissioners' reports and hold that the property under acquisition was situated in the most important area of Kozhikode which is undoubtedly the largest city in the whole of Malabar in terms of commerce, industry, transport facilities as well as several other factors including political ones. The Court below noticed that not even formal counter evidence was adduced by the Government. Ultimately, the Court below fixed land value at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per cent.

(2.) Extensive submissions were addressed before us by the learned Senior Government Pleaders Sri. Basant Balaji and Smt. Latha T. Thankappan on behalf of the appellant in these appeals. According to them, fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per cent is without placing reliance on any document regarding transactions of sale or other transfer in respect of immovable property. The Court below having not chosen to place reliance on any of the items of documentary evidence including the commissioners report has fixed the market value of the land under acquisition on guess work which is not lawful.

(3.) The submissions of the learned Government Pleaders were resisted very forcefully by the learned counsel for the claimants, viz., Smt. T. Resmi Damodaran and Sri. P. A. Harish. According to them, the property under acquisition was situated on the Muthalakulam Junction which is easily the most important junction in Kozhikode Corporation. Document comparable to the properties were not available. This was why resort was made to Ext. A2. The commissioner on a comparison had reported in clear terms that A2 property is far superior and A2 document is a post notification document. In a given case, post notification document can be relied on especially when there is no evidence to hold that the higher value reflected in the post notification document is not on account of the acquisition in question.