Claimants must adduce acceptable legal evidence to support their claims for enhanced compensation, and there should be a real and marked difference in the values of properties with and without road frontage.

Pius. C. Kuriakose, J.

These are all appeals preferred by the government challenging enhancement of land acquisition compensation, awarded by the Subordinate Judge Court, Thiruvananthapuram in land acquisition reference cases. The reference cases pertained to acquisition of land in Muttathara Village within the limits of Thiruvananthapuram city for the construction of Moonathumukku bridge and approach road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 16.02.2001. The land acquisition officer categorized lands under acquisition into two categories. Properties in Category No.1 were properties which had direct frontage of road and properties in category No.2 were properties which did not have such frontage. For properties in category No.1 the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 42,538/- per Acre and for the properties in category No.2, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 34032/-.

2. Before the reference court, the parties in the first four cases within pertain to acquisition of land in category No.2 relied on Ext.A.1, copy of sale deed No.3482/99 of Sub Registry, Thiruvananthapuram and in the remaining cases pertaining to lands in category 1, the evidence on the side of the claimants mainly consisted of Ext.A1, copy of sale deed No.558/99 of the Sub Registry, Thiruvananthapuram. The oral evidence in the first four cases was given by the claimants alone. In the first four cases, the claimants did not take out any commission for having a comparative assessment of the properties covered by Ext.A1 relied on by them and the properties under acquisition.

Those claimants did not take out even a commission to substantiate their claim for compensation on account of diminution of land value of reminder properties and also on account of enhanced land value for the structures which exist on the properties. In the other cases however a commission was taken out and the commissioner filed his report. Advocate commissioner was examined also.

3. On an evaluation of the evidence, the reference court enhanced the value of properties in category No.1 to Rs.1,40,000/- per Acre. This the learned Judge did relying on the recitals in the documents produced by the claimants and the oral testimonies of the claimant. In the cases pertaining to acquisition of properties in category No.1, the reference court virtually accepted the Commissioner's report and the testimony of commissioner and awarded compensation at various rates stated in the judgments towards value of structures and also towards shifting charges wrongly referred in some of the cases as compensation for loss of earnings. Surprisingly, even in those cases pertaining to acquisition of land in category No.2 where no commission had been taken out and reports obtained, the court would award enhanced compensation towards value of structures and also towards diminution of land value.

4. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader and also those of Sri .R. Manoj, learned counsel for the claimants. Sri Basant Balaji would argue that the reference court was not at all justified in doing away with the categorization of the properties under acquisition which had been made by the land acquisition officer on a rational basis. Learned Government Pleader submitted that there was difference between the values of the properties having direct road frontage and those properties which did not have direct road frontage. Sri.Basant argued that in the four cases pertaining to lands in category No.2, the reference court has awarded enhanced compensation towards value of structures and also towards injurious affection of the remainder properties relying only on the oral testimony of the respective claimants. He also argued that even in the other cases pertaining to lands in category No.1, the enhancement granted by the court below towards value of structures and injurious affection was excessive. The learned Government Pleader als