K.S. Sanjeev (Dead) by Lrs. etc. etc. versus State of… — Land Acquisition | Supreme Court (2016)

K.S. Sanjeev (Dead) by Lrs. etc. etc. versus State of… — Land Acquisition | Supreme Court (2016)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed: land value for the acquired land fixed at Rs.17,250/- per cent with other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; abatement set aside; delay in filing substitution application condoned; application for substitution allowed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of their acquired land covered by LAR 31/1990, having regard to the A4 sale document.

Court's answer

There was no justification for not taking the A4 sale document into consideration for fixing the land value of the acquired land; the A4 property was sold at Rs.17,250/- per cent on 27.10.1986, shortly before the Section 4(1) Notification dated 03.02.1987.

Ratio / Principle

Comparable sale evidence cannot be discarded merely because the witness was not factually correct on description; the body language or conduct of the witness in Court is not really relevant, fixation being mainly based on the factual position revealed from the documents.

Key takeaways

The acquired land is not wet land but reclaimed dried land, though lying below the road level, as per the finding of the High Court, rejecting the State's contention that it was wet land.ratio¶39
The appellants are entitled to land value for the acquired land fixed at Rs.17,250/- per cent, together with other statutory benefits in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Compensation — Enhancement — Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.11,000 per cent; Reference Court refused enhancement ignoring the A4 sale document — Property covered by A4 sold at Rs.17,250 per cent on 27.10.1986, shortly before the s.4(1) Notification dated 03.02.1987 — A4 land in Panchayat area while acquired land in Municipal area, Kottayam town, abutting M.C. Road — Original owner's false statement on road frontage and claim for retention wall costs showed greed at worst but were not grounds to discard A4; if land is otherwise comparable, evidence cannot be discarded for witness's incorrect description — Body language or conduct of witness in Court not relevant; fixation based mainly on factual position from documents — Acquired land held to be reclaimed dried land, not wet land — Held: appellants entitled to land value at Rs.17,250 per cent plus other statutory benefits under the Act; abatement set aside, delay condoned, substitution allowed; appeals allowed, no costs.

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 635

A

K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC.

v.

STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 3610-3612 of2007)

B

JANUARY 07, 2016

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation - Enhancement of - Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation Rs.11000 per cent - Reference Court ignored the document (A-4) relied upon by the appellant-land owner and refused enhancement of compensation - Property covered by A-4 document was sold for R. 17250 per cent on 27.10.1986 - The instant s.4(1) Notification was issued on 3.2.1987 - Held: There was no justification for not taking into consideration the said document for fixing the land value - A-4 land was in Panchayat area whereas the acquired land was in Municipal area and was also abutting the MC. road - Appellant entitled to land value for the acquired land fixed @ Rs. 17250 per cent and also entitled for other statutory benefits in terms of the Act.

c

D

E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 36103612 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2003 of the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in LA.A. No. 916, 942 of 1997 and 347of1998

F

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 3613 of2007.

Romy Chacko, Adv. for the Appellants.

G

M. T. George, Ms. Prema Chaturvedi, G. Prakash, Jogy Scaria, Vishnu Shankar, M. S., Sriram Prabhat, M. P. Vinod, Advs. for the Respondents.

H

635

636

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2016) 4 S.C.R.

A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KURIAN, J.

Abatement is set aside.

Delay in filing substitution application is condoned.

B

Application for substitution not opposed and is, accordingly, allowed.

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. C ' The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation ofRs.11,000/-per cent. The Reference Court declined to grant any enhancement though, the appellants relied on A4 and Al4 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. A 14 D 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.

E

F

G

Be that as it may, before us, the learned counsel forthe appellants has placed reliance only onA4 land. It is not in dispute that the property covered by A4 document was sold for Rs.189750/-(Rs. l 7250/- per cent) on 27. I 0.1986. The date of Section 4( I) 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.

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.

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

H

K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. [KURIAN, J.]

637

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 discardingA4. 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.

A

B

c

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.

D 6. Appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs. Devika Gujral Appeals allmYed.