Indian Rare Earths Ltd. v. Elsave Fernandez — 1997 DIGILAW 143 (KER)

Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. These appeals arise from the judgment and decree of the additional Sub Judge of Kollam L.A.R. Nos. 31, 32 and 33 of 1988. 2. The appellant in these cases is M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara, which was the requisitioning authority. It is a Government of India Undertaking with factory at Chavara Village in Karunagappally Taluk. The properties involved in these matters were lying adjacent to M/s. Indian Rare Earths Company and the acquisition was by the State of Kerala for expansion of the plant facilities of the Company. The claimant in L.A.R. No. 31/88 was the owner of 2.83 Ares of dry land in Sy. No.134/12-13 of Chavara Village. The claimant in L.A.R. No. 32/ 88 by name Alphonse Fernandez was the owner of 2.84 Ares of dry land in Sy. No. 136/16 of Chavara Village. The claimants in L.A.R. No. 33.88 by names Francis Fernandez and Mekhail Fernandez were the owners of 2.02 acres of dry land in Sy. No. 136/11 of Chavara Village. These properties were acquired as per the notification dated 6.12.1983. The award in L.A.R. No. 31./ 88 was dated 18.12.1987 and the date of taking possession was 28.2.1987. In L.A.R.32/88 the date of award as 18.2.1987 and the date of taking possession was 28.2.1987.. In L.A.R. No. 33.88 the date of award was 18.2.1987 and the date of taking possession was 28.2.1987. In LAR No. 31/88 the awarding officer fixed land value at the rate of R.3,443/- per Are whereas the claim was at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per cent. For the structures in the property Rs. 51,000/- was claimed. The total amount granted was Rs. 30,322.30 as per the award. In LAR No. 32/88 the claimant wanted land value to be fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per cent and he claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as value of structures. The total compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 58,655.60. In LAR 33/88 the claim was Rs. 7,000 per cent as land value and Rs.1,00,000/- as value of structures. In this case, the total compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs. 29,246.10. It is to be noted that there were residential buildings in all these three properties. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation reference was made to the reference court at the instance of the claimants. The reference court fixed land value at Rs. 4500/- per cent and granted Rs. 29,246.10. It is to be noted that there were residential buildings in all these three properties. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation reference was made to the reference court at the instance of the claimants. The reference court fixed land value at Rs. 4500/- per cent and granted Rs. 1000/- as shifting charges. No amount was awarded as enhancement of the value of the buildings and other structures in the absence of proper evidence. Aggrieved by that enhancement the second respondent in the LARs filed appeals before this Court. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the awarding officer had fixed the land value considering the value shown in the basic document and considering the fact that there was no road frontage five per cent reduction was made from the value shown in the basic document. Thus according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the enhancement made by the reference court is not justified. The 'basic document as marked as Ext. R2 in LAR No. 32/88 and it was marked as Ext. R6 in LAR No. 33/88. The basic document was not produced in LAR No. 31/88. As the property shown in the basic document was lying near the acquired property and it was nearer to the national highway than the acquired property, five percent reduction was given by the Land Acquisition Officer from the value given in the basic document. The purchase of Ext. R6 basic document was examined as A.W.1 in LAR No. 33/88. The land value fixed in the basic document is at the rate of Rs. 3445 per Are equivalent to Rs.1 377.50 percent. The basic sale deed in the same year of acquisition'which is in the year 1983. A.W.1 stated that on the date of basic document the property was lying as water logged area. This is proved incorrect in view of the averment in Ext. R6 that it was Thus, it was clear that it was dry land on the date of Ext. R6. In LAR No. 31/88 Exts. Al and A2 sale deeds were produced. They were Exts. A2 and Al respectively in LARNo. 33/88. As Ext. A2 was after the notification it was rejected by the reference court. But the reference court relied on Ext. Al . It is to be noted that the vendor or the vendee was not examined to prove Ext. Al and A2 sale deeds were produced. They were Exts. A2 and Al respectively in LARNo. 33/88. As Ext. A2 was after the notification it was rejected by the reference court. But the reference court relied on Ext. Al . It is to be noted that the vendor or the vendee was not examined to prove Ext. A1, in LAR No. 31/88. This was marked as Ext. A2 in LAR No. 33/88. But there also the vendor or the vendee was not examined. Further Ext. Al shows the eastern boundary as national highway. Thus, it is clear that Ext. Al property was lying adjacent to the national highway. On that ground also, Ext. Al properly could not be relied on for the purpose of fixing the land value in these cases. The reference court fixed the land value at Rs. 4500/- per cent equivalent to Rs. 11118/- per Are. The notes of award show that the basic property is one kilometre away from Thattacherry Junction and north of Thattacherry - IRE Road. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the acquired properties had no road frontage. But it is seen that there is a road belonging to IRE. Company going in front of the acquired properties towards their quarters. It has also come out in evidence that buses are playing through that road and that public are allowed to travel in those buses. Thus, it is futile to contend that the acquired properties had no road frontage. Simply because the road belongs to IRE. Company it cannot be argued that the acquired properties have no road frontage. It is to be noted that the acquired properties lie adjacent to I.R.E. Company and that itself shows its importance. Further the acquired properties are residential properties. The purpose of acquisition was expansion of the plant of the I.R.E. Company. Thus, the building potential of the acquired lands must be taken into consideration for fixing the land value under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Possibility of user of acquired land for building purposes in the immediate or near future is regarded as building potentiality as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1995) 2 SCC 305. The notes of award produced in the two cases show that there were buildings in the properties acquired. Possibility of user of acquired land for building purposes in the immediate or near future is regarded as building potentiality as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1995) 2 SCC 305. The notes of award produced in the two cases show that there were buildings in the properties acquired. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no commission could be taken out to assess the actual value of the building as they were demolished by the Company within one week after the date of taking possession. The reference court did not give any enhancement regarding the value of buildings and structures in the absence of satisfactory evidence. But it is clear that the properties acquired had potentiality. Considering the fact that the acquired properties lie adjacent to the Company and considering the importance of the locality the reference court was justified in fixing the land value at Rs. 4500/- per cent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the acquired properties had the rare minerals like boxite, ilmanite etc. As they were capable of giving foreign exchange to the Nation and as they were not considered by the reference court, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Rs. 20,000/- more should have been granted as building value. Cross objections are filed by the claimant in LAA No. 461/93. But as no evidence was let in regarding the value of minerals and building value, the claimants are not entitled to get any further enhancement. But considering the importance of the locality it cannot be stated that the land value fixed by the reference court is excessive. 4. It is to be noted that the valuation statement regarding the buildings and other structures are not produced in these three cases. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the usual practice is to get the buildings valued by PWS Engineers and that usually they give only a valuation statement in general showing the total value of the structures. This practice is to be deprecated. The acquisition authority should not adopt attitude like an ordinary client and the valuation statement is prepared to help the reference court and the awarding officer, namely the District Collector to consider as to whether the value shown for the buildings is correct. This practice is to be deprecated. The acquisition authority should not adopt attitude like an ordinary client and the valuation statement is prepared to help the reference court and the awarding officer, namely the District Collector to consider as to whether the value shown for the buildings is correct. So, it was incumbent upon the valuing officer to show details of the valuation in the valuation statement. If there are proper valuation statement that would help the court to consider as to whether the building and other structures were properly valued or not. In the present cases, prejudice was 'caused to the claimants in the absence of valuation statement of the buildings. In the present cases, itis seen that the requisitioning authority has taken great interest for the State. Thus proper care ought to have been taken to show that the valuation made was impartial. There should be no room for doubt in the mind of the court that the valuation was made arbitrarily. Considering all these facts it is necessary that there should be detailed valuation statement prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the buildings and other structures with the help of the Engineers. Considering all these circumstances I do not think that the land value fixed by the reference court is excessive. For the above reasons confirming the judgments and decree of the reference Court, these appeals are dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances parties are to bear their costs. Send a copy of this judgment to the Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram.