Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the decree and judgment in L.A.R. No.381/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The claimant is the appellant.
2. The property was acquired as per notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 6.10.2004. The award was passed on 22.6.2006 and possession was taken on 6.12.2004. The total extent of the property acquired is 4.36 ares which is a dry land comprised in Sy. No.332/8-1 of Peringala Village in Mavelikkara Taluk. The requisitioning authority is the Southern Railway and the acquisition is for the purpose of doubling of the Railway track. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.19,201/- per are which has been enhanced to Rs.40,000/- by the reference court.
3. The claimant had approached this Court earlier by filing L.A.A. No.272/2011 when the reference court enhanced land value at Rs.29,640/-
per are. This Court, after considering various aspects, remanded the matter for fresh consideration allowing sufficient opportunity to all parties to adduce evidence. After remand, the claimant produced Ext.A3 and A4, viz. the certified copies of the judgments in L.A.A. No.166/2011 and 691/2011.
4. Ext.C2 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner wherein the Commissioner has reported about the general features of the acquired land and its importance. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment Ext.A4 will show that this Court enhanced the land value for a land acquired for the same purpose, at Rs.90,000/- per are. It is submitted that the said property is only at a distance of 600 metres from the acquired property and both the properties are comparable as they are dry lands. It is further submitted that the acquired property is situated in a very important location and the details available from the report of the Commissioner will show the important institutions in the locality. It is therefore submitted that the land value fixed by the court below is not correct. It is also submitted that neither the requisitioning authority nor the Government did adduce any evidence in spite of getting an opportunity pursuant to the order of remand.
5. Going by the discussion in the judgment, the court below found that property acquired in Ext.A3 is not comparable, being paddy land. Even though learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon Ext.A3, even if the same concerns a wet land, we find that the view taken by the court below is not erroneous. Then what remains is Ext.A4. As far as Ext.A4 is concerned, the report of the Commissioner, Ext.C2 is relevant to identify the location of the acquired property as compared to the property involved in the said Land Acquisition Appeal. The said property lies south - west of Kakkanad-Nadakkavu road near the level cross. It is reported that the property lies below the road level and it is also situated 600 metres north of the acquired property. As regards road access to the said property also, it is reported that there is no direct road access. According to the Commissioner, the acquired property is better compared to the other.
6. What we find from the files in R.F.A. No.691/2011 is that the property therein is situated near Kayamkulam Railway Station, viz. at a distance of 1 ½ kms. from the said Railway Station. It is near to another junction, viz. Kakkanad-Olakettiyambalam Public Road and so many public institutions are also situated near the acquired property.
7. We find from Ext.C1 commission report that regarding the location and other potentialities of the acquired property, certain details have been furnished. Going by the same, on the western side Railway line is situated and on all the other three sides the properties of nearby owners are there. Half kilometer away there is a temple, a Kindergarten run by N.S.S. and V.S.S. Sanskrit High School and on the east there is Akshaya Computer Centre. It is also reported that about 50 metres away Sankar Memorial Arts and Sports club and about 1 km. Away, Peringala Village Office are situated. Mavoli junction and Panampilly junction are on the western side about 1 kilometer away. Kayamkulam town is at a distance of 3 ½ kms. away and Kayamkulam Railway Station is also situated at a distance of 2 kms.
8. Shri Aloysius Thomas, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that going by the judgment of this Court, viz. Ext.A4, it can be seen that it is a common judgment and one of the appeals involved therein is L.A.A. No.667/2011 wherein the land value has been refixed at Rs.87,500/- per are. It is submitted that as far as the property involved in L.A.A. No.691/2011 is concerned, therein the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at Rs.49,050/- whereas, herein the value fixed is much below that. It is therefore submitted that the value fixed by the reference court is just and fair. Learned Standing Counsel for the Railways also supported the above argument.
9. As far as the reliance placed on Ext.A4 is concerned, what we find is that the said property was acquired for the same purpose as per the very same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is situated only 600 metres from the acquired property. Both are dry lands and the advantages of the said property compared to the acquired property herein is more prominent. It is situated ½ kms. from Kayamkulam Railway Station, whereas the acquired property is 1 ½ kms. from the said Railway Station. But as far as road access to both the properties are concerned, it is seen that there is no direct road access. The properties are situated in two different villages also. Ext.A4 property is in Kayalamkulam Village and the acquired property is in Peringala Village. Going by the features of the acquired property, the same lies very near to the Railway line and the access probably would have been directly through the Railway property. But still, going by Ext.A4 judgment, this Court was inclined to grant enhancement at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per are after considering the importance and other features of the acquired property when compared to the property acquired in Ext.A2 produced in the said case, which has been produced in this case also. Ext.A2 property was acquired in the year 1988. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court may not be justified in relying upon the said judgment, the acquisition of which was in the year 1988. There is a lapse of 16 years.
10. As far as fixing of value of properties is concerned, if comparable documents are there whereby the features, advantages and disadvantages of the properties may be similar and may give due guidance, in the absence of such transactions, the court will have to rely upon the transaction which took place very near to the date of issuance of Section 4 (1) notification for acquisition of property in question and that too of a property, even though it is not very near to the acquired property but which reflect a bonafide transaction. The only other thing for consideration is that the court will have to consider the locational importance and other positive features of the said property to that of the property acquired in question. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, even if this Court is inclined to rely upon Ext.A4, there should be a scaling down of the value that is shown in Ext.A4. The Apex Court in various cases has adopted different criteria ranging from 30% to 53%, going by the reported judgments. In some cases due margin of allowance is given for developmental activities when a large extent of land is acquired. There are cases where 30% margin has been granted considering the locational importance and other factors. Ultimately, the court will have to indulge in guess work in the light of the absence of direct evidence of any similar transaction.
11. Judged in the light of the above, we feel that the appellant is entitled for reasonable enhancement of the value fixed by the reference court. Since the property which was acquired as per Ext.A4 is only at a distance of 600 metres from the property herein, we fix an amount of Rs.65,000/- per are for the acquired property which will be a just compensation.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all the statutory benefits granted by the court below. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) kav/