IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 602 of 2007() ------------------------- ( LAR.NO.128/2003 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THALASSERY) APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- K.C.CHACKO, SON OF CHACKO, KOCHUVELIKKAKATH, RANDAMKADAVU P.O., VANIYAPPARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA., THALASSERY. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL TALAP, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.602 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.V.C.James,learned counsel for the appellant has addressed us very persuasively. He submitted that Ext.X1 report of the Commissioner was not objected to by the government and complained that the learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on Ext.X1. According to him, Ext.X1 revealed that the property was situated in an important area and that much development has taken place in and around the area and taking into account Ext.X1 much more than what is presently awarded should have been awarded by way of land value. According to him, the claimant appellant preferred the land value method and not the method of capitalisation of income from the yielding trees for determining the compensation. 2. Sri.Mathews.K.Philip, learned counsel for the BSNL resisting the submissions of Sri.James would submit that if land value method is to be adopted relevant document available is Ext.A1. Ext.A1 LAA.No.602/2007 2 reveals a land value of Rs. 2,500/- and what is presently granted by way of centage value comes to Rs. 4343/-. The Advocate Commissioner's recommendation regarding market value of the land is not based on values revealed in any sale document, so submitted Sri.Mathews.K.Philip. 3. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. It is true that no objection was filed by the government to Ext.X1 report submitted by the Commissioner. But it is conceded that the Commissioner's recommendation regarding market value of the land in the locality is not based on any document of sale pertaining to similar properties in the locality. The recommendation is on the basis of guess work and the developments noticed by the Commissioner during the inspection. It was noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Commissioner's inspection was much later than the date of Section 4(1) notification. We are of the view that fixation of market value has to be on the basis of cogent material which includes documents pertaining to transactions in respect of similar lands in the locality. Exts.A1 and A2 have been produced. Ext.A1 reveals a land value of Rs. 2,500/- only. LAA.No.602/2007 3 Ext.A2 certainly reveals a land value of Rs. 12,000/- But Ext.A2 is executed some three years subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1). The Supreme Court has in G.M.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another ( 2008 SAR (civil) 894) struck a note of caution against adoption of post notification documents for determining market value of lands. It is observed by the Supreme Court that post notification documents shall be considered only when it becomes indispensable and in the absence of any documents prior to the notification. Such is not the situation here. We do not find any warrant for interference. The result is that the appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.602/2007 4