LAWS(KER)-1999-7-78

STATE OF KERALA Vs. SUSHEELA VARGHESE

Decided On July 27, 1999
STATE OF KERALA Appellant
V/S
Susheela Varghese Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 31.60 Areas of land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Kerala Water Authority. S.4(1) notification was issued on 1-2-1986. The Land was taken possession on 20-3-1987. The Land Acquisition Authority as per award dated 18-3-1987 awarded Rs. 8151/- per Are (Rs. 8,500/- per cent). The claim was for Rs. 12,000/- per Are. On a reference to the Land Acquisition Court, the court below awarded Rs. 20,995/- per Are (Rs. 8,500/- per cent). The State has come up in appeal against the above decree and judgment of the Land Acquisition Court. The claimants have relied on Ext. A1 document dated 21-12-1987 for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation. According to the learned Government Pleader the above document being a post notification one could not have been relied on by the lower court to award enhanced compensation.

(2.) SRI . P. M. Poulose, learned Government Pleader brought to our notice atleast three decisions of the Supreme Court in order to drive home the point that the document executed after the date of S.4 notification can be relied on only on certain conditions. In the ruling reported in State of U.P. v. Jitendra Kumar (AIR 1982 SC 876), the Supreme Court considered the above question in the following words:

(3.) AW 2, who was the Accounts Manager of the Company which purchased Ext. A1 property deposed that due to the delay in getting sanction from the Head Office, the transaction could not take place immediately after the negotiation. He also deposed that the negotiation started in 1985. In this connection it must be pointed out that there was no suggestion at the instance of the State that Ext. A1 was executed solely for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation for the acquired land. It was also not disputed that Ext. A1 document was a genuine document bona fide executed by the parties. In this connection it must also be mentioned that the property covered by Ext. A1 is a large extent so that it was not intended to procure as an evidence for higher price in the locality.