Contemporary land transactions can reliably determine compensation value in acquisition cases, challenging the exclusion of older documents based solely on their age.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the award dated 30.09.2013 of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Manjeri in LAR No.46 of 2012. Appellant was the claimant in the LAR.

2. An extent of 0.0400 hectares of land, 9.88 cents, comprised in survey No.225/2 of Karuvarakundu Village owned by the claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Karuvarakundu bridge and approach road. Section 4 (1) Notification was issued on 02.01.2008. An amount of Rs.1,49,512/- was awarded at the rate of Rs.3,300/- per cent as compensation as per award No.7/12 dated 08.05.2012 and the land was taken possession of on 07.12.2011. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, the claimant moved the reference court. The reference court thereupon enhanced the land value to Rs.4,950/ per cent. Dissatisfied with the enhancement, claimant has preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, Advocate, for the appellant and Smt.Rekha C.Nair, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award of the reference court is illegal and the enhancement of Rs.1,650/- per cent granted by the reference court is meagre and inadequate. It is contended that the reference court had overlooked Ext.A1 document. The said document dated 28.10.2000 related to an extent of 4 cents of land in the same village, which was purchased for a consideration of Rs.56,000/-. Section 4(1) notification for acquiring claimant's land is dated 02.01.2008. Thus, the reference court ought to have appreciated that the the prevailing centage value in the area prior to 8 years was at least Rs.14,000/-. The finding of the court below that Ext.A1 cannot be relied on since its is of a transaction 8 years prior to the notification is unsustainable as it is settled law that even post notification documents can be taken into consideration while fixing the value in land acquisition. The reference court ought to have granted a centage value of at least Rs.75,000/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference court erred in not taking into account Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner which had categorically stated that the centage value in the area on the date of acquisition is Rs.1,00,000/-. The reference court also failed to appreciate the deposition of AW1 and to undertake a combined reading of the said deposition along with the documents produced by the claimant, which clearly revealed that the value of the property was much more than what had been awarded. The court below also overlooked the fact that the acquired property is a fertile land whereas the basic land is situated in a non- residential area without any locational importance. The Commissioner had specifically deposed that the acquired land is situated in an area where all facilities are available. The acquired land had road access to Nilambur Perumpilavu National Highway and from Akkara Pulvetta Panchayat Road. It had been admitted by RW1 that there was a concrete bridge for getting access to the acquired property from the PWD road even before acquisition whereas the basic land had no such facilities and was also incapable of being used for agricultural purposes as it was a barren land. The learned counsel for the appellant thus contended that the award of the reference court is fit to be interfered with and the compensation awarded has to be enhanced. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by this Court in Joy C.P. and others v. Special Tahsildar for land acquisition (G.) No. 1 Palakkad and others, wherein this Court had referring to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] and Loveleen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others [2018 KHC 6430] held that there is no inevitable rule that a document beyond five years cannot be considered at all.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Plea