IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1003 of 2001(A) --------------------------- LAR.1/1999 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT -------------- TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA CO. LTD PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.THOMAS VELLAPPALLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1003 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the land acquisition reference court. The acquisition was of property in Peruvanthanam village i.e. at the point of 35th mile of KK Road for construction of a road to Thekkemala. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 23-6-1998. The awarding officer relying on the basis document which revealed a centage value of Rs.5000/- per cent would fix market value of the property at Rs.1282/- and pass award at that rate. Before the reference court it was Ext.A1 document dated 27-03-1998 which was relied on mainly by the appellant/claimant to support their claim for enhanced land value at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per cent. Ext.A1 was in respect of property having an extent of 29 cents. Ext.A1 was marked in evidence through the senior manager of the appellant company. In other words, the appellant company did not feel like proving the transaction recorded in Ext.A1 LAA.No.1003/01 2 fully by examining any of the parties to Ext.A1 or anybody who is directly connected with the execution of Ext.A1. 2. In this appeal, the impugned judgment is assailed on various grounds including the ground that the court below should have relied on Ext.A1 itself and fixed the market value of the acquired properties at Rs. 9,000/- per cent deducting 40% of the value reflected in Ext.A1 for the apparent plus points enjoyed by Ext.A1 property. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel Sri.Joseph Markose and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. Sri.Joseph Markose would take us through the evidence particularly the recitals in Ext.A1 and the oral testimony of PW1, the Senior Manager of the appellant company. Sri.Markose submitted that the basis document was not even produced. He pointed out that there was not even a suggestion in cross examination that Ext.A1 is an artificial document brought into existence for the purpose of staking a higher land value in land acquisition reference. No concrete evidence was adduced by the government to show that there is any relationship between the parties LAA.No.1003/01 3 to Ext.A1 and the Directors of the appellant company. The vendor in Ext.A1 was a planter who was an assessee to income tax and that was why the correct market value actually paid was shown in the document unlike the basis document which was executed between two private parties. The court below was not at all justified in being doubtful regarding the genuineness of Ext.A1. 4. All the submissions of the learned senior counsel were resisted by Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. According to him, even if it is true that the properties covered by Ext.A1 and the basis document was comparable, the circumstance that three times the value shown in basis document is shown in Ext.A1 should arouse suspicion in the mind of any conscientious court. According to him, Ext.A1 ought to have been proved by somebody connected to the same in the light of the suggestions made in cross examination of AW1. Sri.Basant Balaji further submitted that there is no comparison between the property under acquisition which was actually lying as a private road and the property covered by Ext.A1. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that the basis document is LAA.No.1003/01 4 the only dependable document and since two yielding coconut trees were standing on the basis property, the learned Sub Judge was justified in cutting Rs. 2000/- from out of the centage value revealed in Ext.A1. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. According to us, in the teeth of the suggestion in cross examination of AW1 that Ext.A1 is not a genuine document, it was obligatory on the part of the claimant to have proved Ext.A1 to the very hilt by examining either the vendor or the vendee or somebody else connected with the transaction recorded in Ext.A1. Once Ext.A1 is eschewed, the only evidence which is available on the basis of which market value can be fixed is the basis document. Of course, certified copy of the basis document was not produced . It is trite that basis document relied on by the land acquisition officer which is discussed in the notes to award by the land acquisition officer can be relied on by the reference court also even without production of copy. In this particular case, there is no dispute between the parties that the basis document is a genuine document and that the transaction recorded in LAA.No.1003/01 5 the basis document is a genuine transaction. The basis document admittedly reveals a land value of Rs.5,000/-. There is evidence that Ext.A1 property was purchased as a house plot. That being so, it was not proper on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to have deducted Rs. 2,000/- from the centage value revealed in Ext.A1 for arriving at the market value of the property. Ext.A1 was certainly a small plot. But the submission of the learned senior counsel was that if the claimants so desired, they could have sold their property also as small plots in which case those portions of the acquired property which were closer to the KK road would have definitely fetched even more value than what is revealed in Ext.A1. We find force in the above submission. According to us, relying on the basis document and the oral evidence available in this case, the market value of the acquired property could be reasonably fixed at Rs. 4750/- per cent. Accordingly setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, we refix the value of the acquired property at Rs. 4,750/- ( Rupees four thousand seven hundred and fifty) per cent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible LAA.No.1003/01 6 under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of our refixation of the market value. We clarify that solatium is also a component of the total compensation and will naturally carry interest in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India ( 2001(3) KLT 489) and subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court and this court. The appeal is allowed as above with proportionate costs to the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1003/01 7