Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed from the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.186/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam. An extent of 0.0515 hectares of land in Survey No.66/1 in Block NO.233 of Changanassery Village was acquired for the purpose of providing bell mouth to M.C. Road as per notification dated 20.1.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.25,666/- per are and the appellant claimed Rs.5 lakhs per cent.
2. Before the reference court, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the appellant. Exts.R1 to R4 and C1 and C1(a) were also marked. A.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. The reference court granted enhancement and fixed the land value at Rs.31,065.60 per are. The appellant claims further enhancement.
3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri K.G. Balasubramanian and learned Senior Government Pleader Shri Aloysius Thomas.
4. Before this Court, the appellant has produced as Annexure I, the judgment in L.A.R.No.7/2011 as additional evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property herein was having M.C. Road frontage and it is situated in an important locality. It is submitted that the importance of the locality has not been considered in full by the reference court. It is further submitted that the appellant had claimed amount towards injurious affection which has not been granted by the reference court. One of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the State, by another notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 15.12.2007 acquired another part of the very same property and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,87,101/- per are which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.14,22,414/- per are which indicates that in the first round of litigation on the earlier acquisition the land value was not properly assessed. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that even if the time lag between the two notifications is recognised in tune with the methods adopted by the Apex Court in various decisions, a reasonable amount, i.e. 10% per year even if reduced from that of the land value fixed in Annexure I, the appellant will be entitled for enhancement. It is also submitted that the judgment Annexure I has not been subjected to any appeal so far and it has become final.
6. Learned Senior Govt. Pleader submitted that there cannot be any comparison between the market value fixed in these two acquisitions, since the second acquisition is after the lapse of nearly three years. It is also submitted that the factors which have led to the assessment of market value in Annexure I cannot have relevance to consider the assessment of market value in the impugned judgment since after the first acquisition the importance of the locality has increased much. Learned Senior Govt. Pleader submitted that in connected appeals this Court enhanced the land value by 7 times that of the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and in this context reference was made to the judgment in L.A.A.No.1131/2010.
7. When we come to the evidence adduced before the reference court, we find that the claimant had placed reliance upon Ext.A1 sale deed of the year 2004, viz. 3397/2004. The discussion of the evidence in paragraph 8 will show that 6 cents of property was sold for a total consideration of Rs.18 lakhs and it was found that there is a substantial building in the property and the land value was fixed to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs was shown as the value of the building. The survey number of the property is 66/1 in Block No.233. While adverting to the evidence of AW.1, that the properties are very near, it was found that the survey number itself shows that Ext.A1 property is not near the acquired property and it is situated within a radius of 100 metres from KSRTC bus stand at Changanassery. The eastern and southern boundaries of Ext.A1 property is Dhanya Theatre which is situated in front of KSRTC bus station and the western boundary of the property is M.C. Road. Finally, the court concluded that Ext.A1 property cannot be compared with the acquired property, because both the properties are not similarly situated. There was no building in the acquired property also and the acquired property was lying at a lower level than M.C. Road.
8. The next document is Ext.A2 sale deed which was executed on 24.6.2005. The extent of property involved is 2.32 ares comprised in R.S.No.38/26A in Block No.170. It was found that the same is situated on the immediate eastern side of Ext.A1 property. It was a document executed subsequent to the notification herein and therefore the same was also not relied upon. The reference court considered Exts.A3 to A16 together and found that those are documents to show that the locality wherein the acquired property is situated, is important. After observing that the respondent did not dispute the fact that one of the boundaries of the acquired property is M.C. Road, the reference court held that there is no necessity to dispute Exts.A3 to A16 and the importance of the locality is further evident from Exts.C1 and C1(a).
9. Learned counsel Shri Balasubramanian submitted that the very same document, Ext.A1 herein, was accepted by the reference court while rendering Annexure I judgment (marked as Ext.A5 therein). Our attention was invited to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment. In paragraph 10 it was noticed that Ext.A5 document therein executed on 4.10.2004 reveals that the land value was at the rate of Rs.6,46,552/-. Ext.A6 sale deed therein was executed on 24/6/2005 by which the property in Ext.A5 was again sold for a land value at the rate of Rs.9,48,276/-. The court therefore observed that there is 47% increase within a short span of 8 months. Thereafter, by enhancing 50% of the land value mentioned in Ext.A6 for fixing the market value of the acquired property, the amount has been finally arrived at Rs.14,22,414/- per are. It was also held that the properties are identical in nature.
10. When we consider the question of acceptance of the above finding to be applied for the present case, we find that we will not be justified in ignoring the reasoning adopted by the trial court that in Ext.A1 there is a substantial building. Shri Balasubramanian explained that the building would not fetch a very good value. But when the court has observed that the building is a substantial one and further referred to the location of the said property, i.e. immediately on the front of the KSRTC bus station which is an important place in Changanassery town and it is bounded by a theatre complex, we will not be justified in ignoring the said evidence, so as to blindly accept the land value awarded by the trial court on a second occasion, by Annexure I judgment. It will not be a safe method to assess the land value of the acquired property involved in this case.
11. The property is on the M.C. road side. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is dated 20.1.2005 and on a later occasion when another item of property was acquired which is involved in Annexure I judgment (0.25 ares) in Sy. No.233/66-4, the notification is dated 15.12.2007. The time lag is also a factor which will have to be considered by us while refusing to consider the land value reflected in Ext.A1. The first acquisition was for developing the bell mouth adjoining M.C. Road. Therefore, the only safe method is to adopt the enhancement of land value made by this Court in LAA No.1131/2010. The property therein was acquired for the very same purpose and both the properties are situated in the very same locality also. Therefore, reliance can be placed on the said judgment and accordingly we refix the land value at Rs.1,79,820/-, after considering the percentage of increase adopted by this Court.
12. As far as the issue of injurious affection is concerned, the reference court found against the appellant. Shri Balasubramanian explained with the help of a sketch that the property is lying in two triangles. Of course, the balance extent will be above 5 cents. Evidently, it has become a building plot. In that view of the matter, once the importance of the locality itself had increased because of the acquisition and the evidence does not indicate the justification for granting any amount towards injurious affection, we confirm the finding on that aspect by the reference court.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed refixing the land value at Rs.1,79,820/- per are and the appellant is entitled to all the statutory benefits granted by the reference court. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) kav/