The court established the correct methodology for determining market value in land acquisition appeals, emphasizing the weightage of different sale values.

D r. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As both these Land Acquisition Appeals impugn the same decree and judgment dated 12.03.2019 of the Reference Court in L.A.R.No.1 of 2011, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. L.A.A.No.255 of 2019 is filed by the Vakathanam Grama Panchayath, which was the requisitioning authority and L.A.A.No.250 of 2019 is filed by the claimant whose land was acquired through the acquisition proceedings. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these Land Acquisition Appeals are as follows:

3. An extent of 18.70 Ares of property [46 cents] in Sy.No.203/1 in Block No.12 in Vakathanam Village was acquired for the purposes of construction of a taxi stand for the Vakathanam Grama Panchayath. Section 4 (1) notification was published on 22.08.2008, the possession of the land was taken on 30.05.2010 and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] was published on 31.03.2010. The LAO fixed the market value of the land at Rs.65,000/- per Are based on Ext.B14 Sale Deed

2025:KER:53433 No.944/2007 dated 07.03.2007, wherein, the market value of the land was shown as Rs.50,000/- per Are.

4. In a reference that was preferred at the instance of the claimant, the Reference Court relied on Ext.A2 Sale Deed No.3717/2006 dated 07.12.2006 and Ext.A3 Sale Deed No.3718/2006 dated 07.12.2006, both pertaining to the very same property that was acquired from the claimant. Finding that the market value of the land in Ext.A2 Sale Deed was Rs.3,70,370/- per Are and the market value of the land covered by Ext.A3 Sale Deed was Rs.3,32,225/- per Are, the Reference Court arrived at the average value of Rs.3,51,298/- as the market value for the purposes of grant of compensation to the claimant.

5. In the appeal before us, the stand of the Vakathanam Grama Panchayat/Requisitioning Authority is that the Reference Court had clearly found that the claimant was aware of the proposed acquisition and that fact was sufficient to disbelieve the values shown in Exts.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds that were eventually adopted for the purposes of fixing a market value of the land acquired from the claimant. Alternatively, he submits that even if the mere knowledge of the proposed acquisition will not affect the fixation of market value, the Reference Court erred in computing the average value at Rs.3,51,298/- since the proportion of the land of higher value in Ext.A2 to the total extent of land that was

2025:KER:53433 acquired from the appellant was only 25.99%. He submits therefore that almost 74% of the land acquired from the claimant was covered by Ext.A3 Sale Deed where the land value was significantly lower. According to him, a correct computation of the average sale value in respect of the land after giving due weightage to the shares of the respective lands covered by Ext.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds, for the purposes of valuation, would be Rs.3,08,563/-.

6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant in L.A.A.No.250 of 2019 that the Reference Court did not grant the enhancement required for the two years that had lapsed from the dates in Ext.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds. He would point out that the market value fixed for the lands under Exts.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds have to be enhanced to cover the period from 07.12.2006, the date of execution of those sale exemplars till 22.08.2008 the date of publication of Section 4 (1) notification.

7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the Reference Court need not be interfered with save to a very limited extent of correcting the figure adopted towards market value