The court determined that prior inaccuracies in land valuation warranted remittance for fresh consideration under the RFCTLARR Act, ensuring appropriate evidence evaluation.

JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the challenge is against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2024 in LAR No.50 of 2021 on the file of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Kollam.

2. The property of the respondent, having an extent of 0.15 Ares comprised in Block No.25, Re-Survey No.453/3-2 of Mundakkal Village in Kollam Taluk was acquired for the construction of Eravipuram Railway Overbridge, and its approach road. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) was published on 15.02.2019. An award for a total sum of Rs.4,79,906/- was passed by fixing the land value as Rs.1,14,222.45 as per award dated 31.12.2020. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted, reference was sought under Section 64 of the Act.

3. Before the Authority, the respondent relied on Ext. A1, certified copy of the Sale Deed No.1880/2017 of Eravipuram SRO dated 18.10.2017. The respondent contented that the property covered by Ext. A1 was similarly situated and therefore the value shown in the said document can be followed for fixing the land value of the property acquired. This was accepted by the Authority. The Authority fixed the land value on the basis of the value reflected in Ext. A1. Under various other heads also the Authority granted/

enhanced compensation.

4. In this appeal the appellant has contented that the value was increased by the Authority by 305.32% per Are. It is submitted by the appellant that the land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer considering 20 sale deeds within the vicinity. However, the learned Authority relied entirely on Ext. A1 to re-fix the land value. It is pointed out that the prior deed to Ext. A1, Sale Deed No.114/2017 was executed only a few months before the execution of Ext. A1 at the rate of Rs.15,89,400/- per Are. However, the land value as per Ext. A1 is Rs.30,86,419/- per Are. It is further pointed out that the agreement with respect to Ext. A1 was registered only on 11.10.2017 and the sale deed was executed two days later on 13.10.2017. For these reasons, it is submitted by the appellant that the Ext. A1 lacks credibility. It is also pointed out that the fair value of the property in Ext. A1 was only Rs.5,28,000/- per Are.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that there was no reliable material before the Authority to show that the property covered by Ext. A1 and the property acquired in the case on hand were similarly situated. She pointed out that the properties were not identified by any Commissioner and there was nothing on record other than the assertion of the respondent that the properties are identical. She further submitted that the property covered by Ext. A1 was having a higher commercial value as the said property was situated close to the National Highway and in a commercially important locality. On the other hand, the property acquired from the respondent was situated much away from the National Highway and had no commercial importance. The learned Senior Government Pleader further pointed out that the direction issued by the Authority to pay 12% increase from 15.02.2019 is also erroneous. She submitted that in view of Section 69 (2) of the Act, the increase at the rate of 12% is to be calculated from the date of publication of the preliminary notification which was on 17.09.2019 in this case. The learned Senior Government Pleader also assailed the findings of the Authority that the respondent was entitled for a higher compensation for diminution of utility of the remaining property. It was further argued by the learne