IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 146 of 2006()
1. ANTHAPPAN, S/O.MAROTTIKKAL DEVASSY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. PUDUKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
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
JUDGEC. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-