Ramachandran vs District Collector

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimants are the appellants. Their properties in Malappuram village situated within the limits of Malappuram Municipal town and at a distance of hardly 500 meters from the civil station in Malappuram town was acquired for the construction of approach road to Ummathoor-Aanakadavu bridge. The acquisition was on the basis of S. 4(1) notification which was published on 14.11.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a particular basis document and awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5008.29 percent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied mainly on Exts.A1 and A2 sales documents. Ext. A1 document was a pre notification document executed about two and half years prior to the date of S. 4(1) notification in favour of Malapuram District Police Co-operative Society and reflected land value at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per cent. Ext. A2 also reflected the same rate of land value. However, A2 was a post notification document executed on 10.10.2006. Apart from Exts.A1 and A2, the appellants relied also on Exts.X1 and X2 commission reports submitted by the very same advocate in two of the three cases which were involved in these appeals. The Commissioner''s reports were to the effect that the properties were situated in a locality with several locational advantages. Under the impugned common judgment the learned Sub Judge has confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, Exts.A1 and A2 properties, unlike the properties under acquisition, were situated very near to the Malappuram town. For that reason no reliance was placed on Exts.Al and A2. The learned Subordinate Judge has blamed the claimants for not having challenged the rejection by the Land Acquisition Officer of documents which reflected much higher value than the value reflected in the basis documents. The learned Sub Judge also noticed that because of emergence of the approach road pursuant to the acquisition the value of those properties of the claimants, which were left out after acquisition, has increased considerably thus benefiting the appellants. The learned Subordinate Judge was more inspired by the oral evidence adduced by RW1 than by the oral evidence adduced by the claimants. Ultimately, the learned Sub Judge would approve the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and answer the reference holding that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is the correct market value of the property under acquisition.

In these appeals various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Reference Court. According to the appellants, even though there is justification for fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 90,000/- per cent for reducing litigational costs they are limiting their claims to Rs. 20,000/- per cent only.

Sri.Rajesh R.Kormath learned counsel for the appellants addressed us on the basis of the various grounds raised. The learned counsel read over to us certain portions of the notes to award as well as the impugned judgment. According to him, clause sixthly of S. 24 of the Land Acquisition Act specifically provides that any increase in the value of the unacquired property on account of the acquisition is an aspect to be neglected by the Reference Court while fixing the compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the observation of the learned Sub Judge that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are nearer to Malapuram town is not correct. The acquired properties were also very much near to Malappuram town, situated within the limits of Malappuram Municipality and at a distance of hardly 500 meters away from the Malappuram Collectorate.

The learned senior Government Pleader Sri. C.R. Shyamkumar would fairly agree that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken into account irrelevant considerations prohibited by clause sixthly of S. 24 of the Act while passing the award. According to him, the matter may have to be remanded to the Reference Court directing the Reference Court to pass a fresh award. The Government Pleader submitted that there will not be any serious objection in opportunity being given to the appellants for adducing evidence. Mr. Rajesh Kormath submitted that all the appellants are impecunious persons and they would like to have the issue settled by this court on the basis of whatever evidence is available on record.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the learned Subordinate Judge while answering the reference. Clause sixthly of S. 24 of L.A. Act, which deals with matters to be neglected by the court while fixing compensation, reads as follows:

Sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired, will be put.

The statute under S. 24 specifically forbids the court from taking into account the increase in the value of the unacquired land of the claimant resulting from the use to which the acquired land will be put by the acquisitioning authority.

So also we are surprised to find that the learned Sub Judge has blamed the appellants for not having challenged the rejection of a few documents reflecting higher value by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of passing the original award. It is trite that awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer are only offers. The awardees are free to accept or not to accept those offers. That in this case the parties did not accept the offer is evident from the fact that the claimant facilitated a reference of the issue of determination of the correct market value to the court u/s 18. The Reference u/s 18 was registered at the instance of the claimant. The same amounts to expression of her dissatisfaction regarding the determination of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer and the entire procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer in arriving at the market value.

We now come to the important question of determining the correct market value of the property under acquisition. It has come out in evidence that the property was situated within the limits of the Malappuram Municipality. It was also come out in evidence that property was situated at a distance of hardly 500 meters from the Malappuram Collectorate. The properties were dry lands. Exs.A1 is a document in respect of land in the very same village executed two years and four months earlier. Of course A1 property was superior in the sense that the same was enjoying pucca road frontage. A2 is a post notification document. There is some evidence to hold that the acquired properties were also having road facility or at least pathway facility. We are sure that the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time was much more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and approved by the learned Subordinate Judge. On making a reappraisal of the evidence and keeping in mind all the inputs which are relevant while determining the market value of the land under acquisition, we refix the market vale of land involved in these three appeals at Rs. 12,000/- per cent.

The appeals will stand allowed. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total refixed compensation. However, while decree is drafted and provison is made for interest u/S. 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this court while condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The appellants will be entitled for proportionate costs also.