Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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