SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. ABDUL LATHEEF MUSALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Thazhekode village in Kozhikode district for the construction of 110 KV Sub Station for the Kerala State Electricity Board. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 19/02/99. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per cent. In the reference under Section 18, the evidence consisted of the oral testimony of 'a' claimant as AW1, Exts. A1 and a2, B1 file maintained by the Kerala State Electricity Board in respect of the acquisition and Ext. C1 Commissioner's Report. Ext. A1 is a pre-notification document executed three years prior to the notification and it pertains to a fairly large extent of property. It reflected a land value of Rs. 10,913/- per cent. Ext. A2 was again a pre-notification document executed some four years prior to Section 4 (1) notification. Ext. A2 pertains to a small plot and it reflected a land value of Rs. 15,000/- per cent. Exts. A1 and A2 properties were situated very near to the local town mukkom and it became evident that Exts. A1 and A2 properties were situated 3 to 3. 5 kilometres away from the acquired property. However, the court below noticed that Exts. A1 and A2 were in respect of the properties in the same village and in the same re-survey. Ext. B1 was the file kept by the requisitioning authority in respect of the acquisition and Ext. B1 contained ext. B1 (a) Land Value Certificate issued to the requisitioning authority by the local Tahsildar. Ext. B1 revealed that Tahsildar had opined on the basis of enquiry conducted by him that the market value of the land to be acquired is Rs. 7,500/- per cent. Under Ext. C1, the commissioner who conducted a local inspection of all properties including the acquired properties i. e. Exts. A1 and A2 properties, reported that the market value of the acquired property at the relevant time is Rs. 13,000/- per cent. The learned Sub Judge did not become inclined to accept Exts. A1, A2 or even ext. C1 completely. However, noticing that Exts. A1 and A2 properties were in the same village and relying mainly on Ext. B1 (a) Land Value Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the learned Sub Judge re-fixed the land value at rs. 7,500/- per cent under the impugned judgment.

(2.) EVEN though Sri. P. K. Babu, Senior Government Pleader for the appellant argued very strenuously, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment warrants any interference. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having gone through the recitals in Ext. A1 and having taken into account the circumstance that the local tahsildar himself had found on the basis of the enquiry conducted by him that the market value of the property at the relevant time is Rs. 7,500/-, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Sub Judge cannot be faulted in any manner. According to us, it is more or less the correct land value of the property at the relevant time which has been found by the learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment. There is no warrant for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine.