K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 07-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 635 
K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3610-3612 of2007) 
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. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3610-
3612 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 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 3613 of2007. 
Romy Chacko, Adv. for the Appellants. 
M. T. George, Ms. Prema Chaturvedi, G. Prakash, Jogy Scaria, 
Vishnu Shankar, M. S., Sriram Prabhat, M. P. Vinod, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
635 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 
B 
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. 
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 
H 
2. 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. 
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 
K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF 
KERALA AND ANR. [KURIAN, J.] 
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 h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.