KOYAPPATHODI M. AYISHA UMMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1991
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 2027 1991 SCR (3) 548
1991 SCC (4) 8 JT 1991 (6) 105
1991 SCALE (2)332
ACT:
Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961—Section 11--Award--Land with fruit bearing trees--Valuation--Meth- ods--Pendency of appeal whether attracts application of Section 30(2) read with Section 23(2), Land Acquisition Act,1894. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--Order 41, Rule 27--Re-mand--Whether to be made to adduce. fresh evidence when opportunity not utilised.
HEADNOTE:
The notification under section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962) was published in the Gazette on February 28, 1967 acquiring six acres of land to construct staff quarters of P & T of Govt. of India.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.2.30 per cent and also the value of the trees by capital- isation method in a sum of Rs.2,69,421.55 p. towards the land improvement together with 15 per cent solatium and 4
per cent interest.
On reference, the Civil Court enhanced the market value at Rs.500 per cent, i.e., in total Rs.3,00,000 towards land value and confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Offi-
cer of 2,69,421.55 p. towards land improvement. making in all 5,69,421.55 p. with solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent from the date of dispossession.
The appeal by the State was allowed by the High Court.
Calling in question the reversing decree of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the claimant contending that there was an intensive cultivation in the acquired land not only of the fruit hearing trees therein but also using the vacant space for other short term crops to establish, which the appellant sought remand to the Civil Court to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 of Rule 27 etc., which request the High Court had wrongly rejected; that the appellant was entitled to 30 per cent solatium under section
23(2) of the Land Acquisition 549
Act, 1894 as amended under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984; and that the land and the trees together constitute the value of the acquired lands and so were separately valued which would reflect the correct market value, which method the Civil Court had correctly adopted. The State contended that the lands and. the trees cannot be valued separately; and that the Laud Acquisitiou Act,1894 and 1984 Amendment Act have no application since acqui-sition proceedings were admittedly taken under. the Kerala
Land ACquisition Act.
On the question, what is the proper method of valuationof the land, this Court, allowing the claimant's appeal,
HELD.1. The methods of valuation to be adopted inascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of
the notification are: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the pricepaid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of
the purchase or sale of the lands acquired or the landsadjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advan-tages, and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not 'preclude the court from taking any other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into consideration. As the object being always to arrive as near as possible in an estimate of the market value in arriving at a reasonable correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be.the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all
cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined. [553B-D]
2. In evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, 'land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit; but separate.units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market valuebut not both. [555A-C]
State of Kerala V.P.P. Hassan Koya, [1968] 3 SCR 459; Spe-cial550
Land Acquisition Officer v.P. Veerabhadarappa, etc. etc., [1984] 2 SCR 386 and Admn. General of West Bengal v. Collec- tor, Varanasi, [1988] 2 SCR 1025, referred to. 3. SectiOn 30 sub-section (1) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would reveal the legislative in- tendment that the transitional provisions could apply to every proceeding for acquisition of any land under the principal Act, namely, 'Act 1 of 1894 (Central Act), pending on the 30th day of April, 1982, namely, the date of intro- duction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of the People; in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date or the award made by the Civil Court at the date of the Amendment Act. It is clear
that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 including sub-section (2) of section 23 per se is inapplicable to the acquisition of the land under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961. The pendency of the appeals against the award made preceeding the dates in the High Court or this Court would not attract the application of section 30(2) and that, therefore, en- hanced solatium under section 30(2) read with section 23(2) is inapplicable. [556H-557B, 557H-558B]
Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala &Ors., [1989] 4 SCC 650, referred to.
Union of India & Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama, [1990] 1 SCC 277, distinguished.
Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs., [1989] 2 SCC 754, followed.
4. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, total sum of Rs. 10,000 would be reasonable compensation towards the value of the total trees as fire wood or as for use of other purposes after deducting salvage expenses. The appel- lant iS not entitled to enhanced solatium at 30 percent: but is entitled to Rs.3,10,000 as enhanced compensation with 15per cent solatium and interest at 4 per cent on enhanced market value from the date of dispossession. [556A-B, 558B-C]
5. Remand under order 41 Rule27, C.P.C. cannot be made to adduce fresh evidence, when though available but was not adduced; [551H-552A]
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें