IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 815 of 2009()
1. JAMEELA, W/O. HAMSA, NAUSHAD MANZIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEKAL RESORTS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :25/06/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
These three appeals are preferred by the
claimants. The lands under acquisition were in
Kalanad village and the acquisition was pursuant
to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/10/99
at the instance of the Managing Director, Bakel
Resorts Development Corporation. The Land
Acquisition Officer relying on the basis document
fixed the land value at Rs.11,000/- per cent. The
reference Court in the first instance would re-fix
the land value at Rs.9,000/- per cent. Appeal was
preferred by the state to which cross objections
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -2-
were preferred by the claimant. This Court
considering the appeals and cross objections vide
judgment in LAA.584/06 and connected cases set
aside the award of the Reference Court and
remanded the cases back to the Reference Court
giving opportunity to both sides to adduce
evidence regarding the correct market value of
the property. Pursuant to the remand additional
documents were produced and witnesses were
recalled and examined. The evidence on record
before the court after completion of the enquiry
pursuant to the remand order consisted of
Exts.R1, R2, A1 to A37, C1 to C4 oral evidence of
AW1 and AW2, RW1 and RW2. Reliance was
mostly placed by the claimant on Exts.A20, A21,
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -3-
A29 and A30 which were court judgments in
respect of acquisition of land in the same village,
but pursuant to notifications five years and seven
years earlier to the present notification. The
Advocate Commissioner in Ext.A2 had made a
comparison of the properties covered by Exts.A20,
A21, A29 and A30 with the properties under
acquisition and submitted a report to the effect
that there is perfect comparison between the
properties thereby indicating that there is
justification for awarding value at the rate of
Rs.13,000/- which was the value awarded under
Exts.A20, A21, A29 and A30. The Commissioners
who were asked to value the properties on the
basis of the improvements available on the
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -4-
properties would report that the property has to
be paid value at the rate of Rs.8,000/-, 9,000/-
and a maximum of Rs.9,500/- per cent. The
learned Subordinate Judge did not become
inclined to place any reliance on Exts.A20, A21,
A29 or A30. This was because it was noticed that
those judgments were in respect of acquisition
many years subsequent to the present acquisition.
Though Ext.A18 was also relied on, the court
below did not accept the claim since Ext.A18 was
found to be a property situated in the very town.
The court below did not accept recommendations
of the Advocate Commissioner based on the
improvements on the property in full but
ultimately what the court below did was to fix the
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -5-
market value at Rs.9,000/- per cent taking an
average of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.13,000/- which are
respectively the minimum value and maximum
value reflected by the various documents
produced.
2. In these appeals, the appellants have
raised various grounds contending that the market
value re-fixed by the court below is grossly
inadequate. Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned
counsel for the appellants addressed arguments
before us based on the various grounds.
Sri.Balakrishna Iyer referred to Exts.A20, A21,
A29 and A30 and the various commission reports.
According to Sri.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned
Subordinate Judge was actually mislead by the
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -6-
terms of the remand order passed by this Court
which directed the Subordinate Judge to re-fix the
market value based on the evidence that comes
on record. The learned Subordinate Judge
misunderstood the remand order as one directing
him to confine the enquiry to the question as to
whether Rs.10,000/- is the appropriate value to
be awarded. Sri.Balakrishna Iyer requested that
the appeals be allowed in full and the market
value be re-fixed at Rs.15,000/- per cent.
3. All the submissions of Sri.Balakrishna Iyer
were very stiffly resisted by Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the
Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority
who was supported in all his submissions by
Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -7-
Government Pleader.
4. We have considered the rival submissions
addressed at the Bar. We have made a reappraisal
of the evidence. We have gone through the
judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. We
do not find any warrant for interfering with the
impugned award at the instance of the claimant.
Before this Court also reliance was placed more by
Sri.Balakrishna Iyer on Exts.A20, A21, A29 and
A30 and the recommendations in Ext.C2 report
which was actually based on Exts.A20, A21, A29
and A30. Exts.A20, A21, A29 and A30 were
certainly court judgments in respect of acquisition
of land in the same village. But those cases relate
to acquisitions pursuant to notification five years
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -8-
and seven years subsequent. Having regard to the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
G.M., Oil & Natural Gas Cor. Ltd. v. R. Jivanbhai Patel
& Anr. (2008 SAR (Civil) 894), the court is to be
extremely slow and circumspect while relying on
post notification documents. Post notification
document can be resorted to only when pre-
notification documents are not available at all. In
the instant case including the basis document
several pre-notification documents are available.
We therefore, justify the action of the learned
Subordinate Judge in having not placed reliance
on Exts.A20, A21, A29 and A30.
5. When the Reference Court ventures to rely
on Commissioner’s Report for recommendations of
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -9-
the Advocate Commissioner based on local
inspection unless those recommendations are
based on market value reflected in a genuine
transaction of property and certified copies of
those transactions are made available to the court
the recommendations of the Commissioner should
not be accepted. [see judgment of the Supreme
Court in Gafar v. Moradabad Development
Authority (2007(7) SCC 614)].
6. Having reappraised the evidence by
ourselves, we are of the view that the learned
Subordinate Judge was extremely liberal towards
the claimants in the matter of determining the
market value. According to us, it is more or less
the correct market value of the property which
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -10-
has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate
Judge. The claimants/appellants cannot have any
legitimate grievance regarding the market value
presently re-fixed.
7. We dismiss these appeals without any
order as to costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-
L. A. A. Nos.815, 816 & 817 of 2009 -11-