IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 146 of 2006(B) ------------------------------- LAR.25/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- ANTHAPPAN, S/O.MAROTTIKKAL DEVASSY, PUDUKKAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PUDUKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUDUKKAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R2 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R3 SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO.283 OF 2004 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.282, 283 of 2004, 146 of 2006 & 1101 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are the appellants. The appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Amballur village for the purpose of construction of a KSRTC bus station. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 09/07/99. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.20,040/- per Are corresponding to Rs.8,232/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, there were altogether four cases and the Reference Court conducted a joint trial of all the cases. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of LAA.282/04 & con. cases -2- documents Exts.A1 to A7; Exts.B1 to B5; the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2. Reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of a local inspection conducted with respect to the properties under acquisition and the properties covered by the documents relied on by the claimants and the basis document was marked as Ext.C1. The plan prepared by the Commissioner was marked as Ext.C2. The learned Subordinate Judge found on the basis of the evidence that there was no comparison between the properties covered by the basis document and the properties under acquisition. It was also found that the acquired property was situated very near to the Amballur junction on National Highway 47 and that none of the documents produced by the LAA.282/04 & con. cases -3- claimants reveal the correct market value of the properties at the time of acquisition since the documents do not pertain to wetlands. At the same time, it was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that a sum of Rs.3,350/- per cent will be required for reclaiming the lands under acquisition to the levels of the National Highway. The learned Subordinate Judge relied mainly on the oral evidence adduced by RW1, the Secretary of the Requisitioning Authority, the Pudukad Grama Panchayath to conclude that the charges for reclamation will be Rs.3350/- per cent. 2. In fact, Ext.B1 bill issued to the Panchayath by their contractor for reclaiming the lands under acquisition was also relied on very much by the learned Subordinate Judge. The LAA.282/04 & con. cases -4- learned Subordinate Judge noticed that Ext.B4 document relied on by the Panchayath and the Government itself reveal that the value of corresponding dry land is Rs.16,500/- per cent. Therefore, what was done was to deduct a sum of Rs.3350/- from Rs.16,500/- per cent and conclude that the correct market value of one cent of land is Rs.13,150/- as on the date of the transaction covered by Exts.B2 to B5. The learned Judge added 24% towards the passage of more than two years' till the date of proclamation of the relevant notification and accordingly, concluded that the correct market value at the relevant time is Rs.16306/-. 3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/Panchayath was that the court LAA.282/04 & con. cases -5- below was not justified in adopting the method of deducting reclamation charges from the value of corresponding dry lands for arriving at the value of wet lands. According to the learned counsel, the best method as recognized by judicial precedents is the method of determining market value of land on the basis of comparable sales documents. The submissions of the learned counsel were stiffly opposed by Mr.K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the claimants. Mr.Balasubramanian submitted that the properties were situated almost on the very Amballur junction on National Highway 47. This junction, according to the learned counsel, is a very important road junction and it is at this junction that the road coming from places like LAA.282/04 & con. cases -6- Chimmini which have importance not only in terms of irrigation, but also in terms of tourism meets National Highway 47. He submitted that at the relevant time, there was a boom in the real estate market in this area. According to him, the method adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be branded as unscientific. The learned Subordinate Judge has relied on Ext.B1 file which pertain to the reclamation of the very property by the Panchayath and also the oral evidence of RW1 who was none other than the Panchayath Secretary. He submitted that the Requisitioning Authority was not correct in describing the property as wet land. The property was already partially reclaimed. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the claimants should be allowed. LAA.282/04 & con. cases -7- 4. We have considered the rivals submissions addressed at the Bar. We find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Panchayath that the best method for determining the market value of acquired land is the method relying on the land value revealed by sales documents pertaining to comparable properties. But, in the instant case, the learned Subordinate Judge found that none of the documents produced whether it be by the claimants or by the Government or the Requisitioning Authority pertains to a property which is comparable to the property under acquisition. It was under such circumstances that the learned Subordinate Judge resorted to the method of deducting reclamation charges from the value of corresponding dry LAA.282/04 & con. cases -8- lands. The value of corresponding dry lands was arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge relying not on the documents produced by the claimants, but on the documents produced by the Government and the Requisitioning Authority namely Exts.B2 to B5. Ext.B1 file contained papers pertaining to reclamation of the property under acquisition. It was the evidence of RW1 that authority expended a sum of Rs.3,350/- per cent for reclaiming the lands under acquisition to the level of the National Highway. The learned Subordinate Judge relies on Exts.B2 to B5 and also Ext.B1 as well as the oral evidence of RW1 after finding that it is not safe to rely on any of the documents produced by the claimants. We are not very much impressed by LAA.282/04 & con. cases -9- Sri.Balasubramanian's argument that the learned Subordinate Judge has not taken into account the commercial potentialities of the lands under acquisition. We do not agree. In fact, the learned Subordinate Judge took into account the potentiality and possibility of the lands under acquisition which at that time were only wet lands for being reclaimed and utilised for purposes for which dry lands are utilised including the purpose which was sought to be accomplished by the Panchayath i.e the construction of a bus station. According to us, the appellants/claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the market value fixation. We are approving the rate fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge since we find that the properties were situated very near to LAA.282/04 & con. cases -10- the Amballur junction as already stated. These appeals will fail and they are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-