IMPORTANT POINT
Market value for land acquisition must reflect pre-notification sales, and improvements post-acquisition can negate severance compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

The above appeal and Cross Objection arise out of the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.38 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal and Cross Objection are as follows:

An extent of 13.55 Ares of dry land, comprised in Re-survey No.53/30-62 in Block No.53 of Aluva West Village, belonging to the appellant/claimant was acquired by the Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition General], Ernakulam for the purpose of adhoc augmentation to Kochi Water Supply Scheme. The notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27.9.1996 in respect of Aluva West Village (Aluva Municipality). The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.44,510/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . In support of his contention that the land was valued much higher than what has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Exts.A1 to A12 documents were produced before the reference court. On the other hand, Exts.B1 to B9 documents were produced on the side of the respondents. The claimant sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. Exts.C1, C1(a), C1(b), C2, and C2(a) are the report, sketch, and valuation report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. AW1 to AW3 were examined on behalf of the claimant. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the reference court found that Exts.A9 to A12 documents were post-notification documents and, therefore, did not accept the contention of the claimant. Relying on Ext.A6 document executed in the year 1993, the reference court applied 12% cumulative increase to the valuation reflected in the said document and fixed the land value at Rs.1,18,013.952/- per Are which is rounded to Rs.1,18,014/-. In addition to the above, the claimant also sought severance compensation for the remaining extent of 20.10 Ares of land. In support of his contentions the claimant relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the reference court fixed 50% of the land value as severance compensation. It is aggrieved by the fixation of the market value of the land acquired, the claimant has approached this Court in the present Land Acquisition Appeal, and the State has preferred Cross Objection, aggrieved by the severance compensation granted by the reference Court.

3. Heard P.K. Sajeevan the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. T.K. Shajahan the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State in the Cross Objection.

4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we are of the considered view that the reference court erred egregiously in discarding Ext.A12 document. No doubt, Exts.A9 to A12 documents are post-notification documents that cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing the market value. However, that cannot be the case as far as Ext.A12 is concerned. When we read the contents of Ext.A12, the copy of the Sale Deed No.1492/96, we find that the same was executed on 9.4.1996. In the present case, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 27.9.1996. Therefore, inasmuch as Ext.A12, being a pre-notification document, necessarily the reference court ought to have taken into consideration as an exemplar and fix the market value accordingly. When we see the extent of land which is the subject matter of sale under Ext.A12, we find that an extent of 1.800 cents of land in Resurvey No.83 of Aluva West Village is seen sold for a total consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-. Therefore, the value per cent would come to Rs.2,38,888/-. The land sought to be acquired is also in the Aluva West Village.

5. In Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [ (2022) 7 SCC 563 ], the Supreme Court has held that the market value with respect to the l