Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8580
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Easwaran S., JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
MOHANAN – Respondent
LA.App. 267/2017
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR; SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI; SRI.K.SIJU; SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBI
The valuation statement from a bank holds higher evidentiary value in determining compensation for acquired land, justifying the Reference Court's reliance on it over other documents.
Headnote:
(A) Land Acquisition Act - Section 4(1) and Section 18 - Appeal by State against compensation for land acquired for Tsunami rehabilitation - Reference Court enhanced compensation based on valuation statement from State Bank of India - The Reference Court erred in rejecting certified documents that supported the claimants' case - The valuation statement from the bank was deemed to have higher evidentiary value. (Paras 4, 9, 10)
(B) Compensation - The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation based on market value of land, with the bank having a preferential claim under Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The land in question was acquired for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims, with initial compensation set by the Land Acquisition Officer. Claimants sought enhancement, leading to a reference case where the Reference Court considered various documents and testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the Reference Court's reliance on the bank's valuation statement to fix the market value of the land.
Issues: Whether the Reference Court was justified in relying on the bank's valuation statement and the admissibility of the certified documents presented by the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the valuation statement from the bank had a higher evidentiary value and the Reference Court's reliance on it was justified, while also noting that the claimants' entitlement to enhanced compensation would be assessed separately in a related appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S. , J.
This appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Kollam, in L.A.R.No.21 of 2010.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
An extent of 37.42 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.251/14 of Paravoor Village in Kollam Taluk was acquired for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10.10.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value @ Rs.25,204/- per Are. Thus the total compensation of Rs.13,50,587.40/- was granted in favour of the land owner. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile which was numbered as LAR No.21 of 2010.
3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants produced Exts.A1 to A6 documents. The claimants had mortgaged the land acquired in favour of the State Bank of India, and therefore, the State Bank of India, SMECC Branch, Kollam, was also impleaded as an additional 3rd respondent in the reference. On behalf of the bank Exts.B1 to B11 documents were produced. On behalf of the respondent State Exts.R1, R1(a), and R1(b) documents were marked. The claimants also sought for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection, who filed Ext.X1 (a) report. AW1 to AW3 were examined on behalf of the claimants whereas no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the State.
4. The Reference Court relied on Ext.B11 valuation statement of the State Bank of India and refixed the compensation @ Rs.1,54,437.5 per Are (Rs.62,500/- per cent). It is as against the enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court that the State has come up in the present appeal. The claimants have also preferred LA. App. No.391 of 2017 is seeking for enhancement, which we will be considering it by a separate judgment.
5. Heard Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the Reference Court erred in relying on the valuation statement produced on behalf of the bank for the purpose of fixing the land value at Rs.1,54,437.5 per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer had correctly fixed the land value. The claimants had failed to adduce any corroborative evidence to support his claim for enhancement.
7. On the other hand, Sri.K.Siju Kamalasan, appearing for the appellants, pointed out that the Reference Court had egregiously rejected Ext.A1 certified copy of Sale Deed No.3831/2001, which formed the basis of the fixation of the land value in L.A.R. Nos.7/ 2006 and 8/2006 in respect of the land in the same village, which was acquired for the purpose of Paravooor Municipal bus stand. It is further pointed out that as per Ext.X1(a) report of the Advocate Commissioner, the commercial importance of the land acquired, as well as the proximity of the land acquired with that of the land in Ext.A1 document is clearly established. In the absence of any objection by the State against the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Reference Court could not have rejected Ext.A1 document.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made across the bar and perused the records in the reference case.
9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the appeal preferred by the State has to fail for the following reasons. Ext.B11 is a valuation statement taken by the bank prior to the sanctioning of the credit facility for which the land acquired was mortgaged. The valuation taken by the bank do have a higher evidenciary value since it is issued after considering the market value of the land. When Ext.B11 is analysed along with Exts.A1 and A4, we find that the Reference Court could not have rejected Exts.A1 and A4 and relied exclusively on Ext.B11 valuation statement. However, the extent to which th
