http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GHEEVARGHESE MATHEW ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH            CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4124/91 AND 11812/95                          O R D E R      Notification  under   Section  3(1)   the  Kerala  Land Acquisition Act, 1950 which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the Land  Acquisition Act. 1894 (1 of 1894) was published on July 8,  1980 acquiring  an extent  of 3.37 hectares of land for  public  purpose,  namely,  Greater  Cochin  Development Authority, for the purpose of the Site and Service Scheme at Alwaye. The  Land Acquisition  Officer in  his  award  dated March 19, 1982 determined compensation at Rs.280 per cent as against Rs.2000/- per cent claimed by the appellants. On reference, the  civil Court  enhanced  the  compensation  to Rs.1800/- per  cent by  its award and decree dated August 7, 1984. On further appeal by the State, the High Court reduced the compensation  to Rs.1000/- per cent. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      Shri  T.L.V.  Iyer,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the appellants, has contended that the lands under Exs.A-6 to A- 8, of  an extent  ranging between  60 cents and 40 cents had been sold  on March  31, 1976,  April 13, 1976 and April 21, 1976 respectively  at the  rate of Rs.800/- per cent. Ex.A-3 to A-5  would indicate steep rise in the value till the date of the  notification. That  was spoken  of even by RW 2, the Executive Officer  of the  Panchayat. The acquired lands are abutting the two roads on either side. The developed area is situated near  the acquired lands. These facts had been duly taken  note   of  by  the  reference  Court  in  determining reference under  Section 18. The High Court had not adverted to these  relevant facts  but considered  Exs.A-6 to A-8 and held that  the compensation  at Rs.1000/-  would be the just compensation. Unless  the findings  of the  reference  Court were found  to be  perverse, the  High Court  would not have interfered with  the award  of the  reference Court. Shri G. Viswanatha Iyer,  learned senior counsel for the respondent, placed reliance  on a  document, a  letter addressed  by the claimants themselves  wherein they have agreed as on October 15, 1979  to sell  the property to GCDA @ Rs.350/- per cent. In view  of this  circumstance, it  does  not  warrant  more compensation than that has been awarded by the High Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Having  regard   to  the  respective  contentions,  the question that arises for consideration is: what would be the reasonable compensation which the acquired lands are capable to  secure?  It  is  seen  that  Exs.A-3  to  A-5  offer  no comparable value.  As stated  by Shri  Viswanatha Iyer, that they offer only an evidence of rise in the price. It is seen that lands under Ex.A-6 to A-8 also sere purchased by common institution from  the persons,  brothers and  sisters, which happened to  be contiguous  to the  institution  for  better utilisation.  Under  those  circumstances,  they  cannot  be automatically offered  as comparable  sales for the lands in question. Admittedly, the lands are situated outside Always Municipal limits  as on  the date  of notification. The High Court having  considered  the  totality  of  the  facts  and circumstances reduced the compensation to Rs.1000/- per cent as against  Rs.2000/- per cent as claimed by the appellants. It is  more than  4-1/2 times  than what  was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State did not file any appeal.      It is  seen from the letter addressed by the appellants themselves on  October 15, 1979, i.e. 10 months prior to the date  of  the  notification,  that  they  had  assessed  the compensation at  Rs.350/- per cent and offered to sell it at that  rate.   But  for   the  fact   that  no  agreement  as contemplated under  sub-section(2) of  Section 11  has  been executed, this  admission stares  at their face to claim any further  enhancement   in  the   compensation.  It  was  not necessary for  the High Court, before reversing the judgment of the  reference Court,  to reach  at a conclusion that the award and  judgment of  the reference  Court was perverse or wholly unsustainable.  It is the mandatory duty of the Court to consider  the entire  evidence by  applying the tests and principle of  law as  settled by this Court in assessing the compensation and  to find  out  as  to  what  would  be  the reasonable market  value which  the  lands  are  capable  to command in  open market.  In the estimate of the High Court, the reasonable  compensation is  Rs.1000/- per cent which is three times  more than  that was  offered by  the  claimants themselves. Under  these circumstances, we do not think that these  cases   warrant  interference   to  increase  further compensation.      The appeals are dismissed, but without costs.