Kaithamannil Raziya vs District Collector, Malappuram - 676505 and Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads Division), Manjeri, Malappuram District - 676121

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimant is the appellant. Her property in Cheekode village was acquired for the purpose of construction of Edasserikadavu Bridge and approached road pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 02/05/07. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 13,333/- per cent. There was a building on the land under acquisition. But as there is no claim in this appeal for enhanced building value we need have to be concerned only with the correctness of the land value awarded by the Reference Court.

Before the Reference Court the appellant produced Exts.A1 to A3. All these documents reflected a higher land value. Ext.A3 was the nearest of all the three to the date of L. A. A No.89 of 2012 -2-publication of the notification. The documents which were marked as Exts.A1 and A2 were post notification documents. Ext.A3 was the only pre-notification document. Ext.A3 reflected a land value of ` 22,100/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge placed reliance on Ext.A3. Noticing that unlike the properties under acquisition which were enjoying the frontage of Ootty-Kozhikode State Highway, Ext.A3 property was enjoying frontage of only a private road. The learned Subordinate Judge added 5% to the value reflected in Ext.A3 and re-fixed the land value at ` 23,205/- per Are.

In this appeal various grounds are raised urging that Ext.A1 which reflected a land value of ` 2,55,000/- per cent should have been relied on.

We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.Shibli Naha, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Naha drew our attention to Ext.A1 and submitted that Ext.A1 reflected a bare land value of ` 2,55,000/-. Ext.A1 property was much more comparable than the property L. A. A No.89 of 2012 -3-covered by Ext.A3 to the property under acquisition. The learned Subordinate Judge should have relied on Ext.A1 and could have made some deductions as Ext.A1 is a post notification document. Sri.Naha further submitted that at any rate the property under acquisition was far superior to the property covered by Ext.A3. The addition of 5% given by the court below towards superiority of the acquired property is grossly inadequate.

Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader per contra would support the impugned award. According to Sri.Syamkumar, the learned Subordinate Judge has appreciated the document correctly and has come to the right conclusion regarding the market value.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have re-appraised the evidence, particularly Exts.A1 and A3. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on Ext.A1 mainly on the reason that the property covered by Ext.A1 took in a running cinema house also. According to us, there was another excellent reason for the learned Subordinate Judge to discard Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was a post notification document. When pre-notification documents are available the court below was perfectly justified in relying upon Ext.A3, pre-notification document as market value is to be fixed as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly found that the property under acquisition was superior to the property covered by Ext.A3. According to us, there is much force in the submission of Sri.Naha that the due additions have not been given for the superiority of the acquired property over Ext.A3 property. We also find some force in the submissions in the learned Counsel that additions should have been given for the passage of above two years'' time after the date of Section 4 (1) notification till the date of execution of Ext.A3. According to us, for the passage of time 20% increase could have been given. We feel therefore, that for the superiority instead of 5% increase given there is justification for granting 15% which means that the appellant is eligible to be awarded 30% of the value reflected in Ext.A3 more than what is awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge. This means that the market value of the property under acquisition will have to be re-fixed at ` 29,835/- per cent. Allowing this appeal we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at ` 29,835/- per cent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appellant is awarded proportionate costs also.

Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted by the appellant.