K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 3610-3612 of 2007, Judgment Date: Jan 07, 2016
REPORTABLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3610-3612 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.24535-37 of 2003)
K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD)BY LRS. ETC. ETC. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3613 OF 2007
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
Abatement is set aside.
Delay in filing substitution application is condoned.
Application for substitution not opposed and is, accordingly,
allowed.
1. The short question to be decided is whether the appellants are
entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of their acquired land and
covered by LAR 31/1990 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam. The
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.11,000/- per cent. The
Reference Court declined to grant any enhancement though, the appellants
relied on A4 and A14 documents. A4 land abutting M.C. Road is in Panchayat
area whereas the acquired land is in the Municipal area, Kottayam town.
Both are in close proximity, it is not disputed. A14 is a letter issued to
the Department of Telecommunications, inter alia, stating that the
Department is not interested in the property as the value fixed by the
District Collector is Rs.27500/-. It seems from the record that the
Department declined to respond to the aforesaid letter on the ground that
the value of the land was very high.
2. Be that as it may, before us, the learned counsel for the appellants
has placed reliance only on A4 land. It is not in dispute that the property
covered by A4 document was sold for Rs.189750/- (Rs.17250/- per cent) on
27.10.1986. The date of Section 4(1) Notification in the case before us is
03.02.1987. We see no justification as to why the said document should not
be taken into consideration for fixing the land value. A4 land is in
Panchayat area whereas the acquired land is in Municipal area and it is
also abutting the M.C. Road. Southern boundary of the property is river.
The claim was in fact for Rs. 75,000/- per cent.
3. Mr. M.T. Goerge, learned counsel for the State submits that the
acquired land is wet land. Records show that the acquired land is not wet
land but reclaimed dried land, though lying below the road level, as can be
seen from the finding of the High Court.
4. The High Court declined to consider A4 on two grounds (1) The
original owner of the land (since deceased) when examined before the
Reference Court was not truthful in the sense that according to him A4 land
did not have road frontage, which no doubt is factually false. (2) He
claimed costs for the retention wall on the riverside boundary, despite the
fact that the same had been put up at Government expense. This conduct of
the witness would only show that he was a greedy person at the worst.
Obviously he made an attempt to claim more value than A4 deposing that A4
did not have road frontage and yet Rs.17,250/- was the centage value. But
that is not a ground for discarding A4. If the land is otherwise
comparable, merely because the witness was not factually correct on
description, the evidence cannot be discarded. In fixing the land value,
body language of the witness or his conduct in Court are all not really
relevant. The fixation is mainly based on the factual position as revealed
from the documents.
5. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled
to land value for the acquired land fixed at Rs.17250/- per cent and they
are also entitled for other statutory benefits in terms of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894.
6. Appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
....................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
.....................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 7, 2016