GHEEVARGHESE MATHEW ETC.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR. ETC.

                  GHEEVARGHESE MATHEW ETC.                                   A
                              v.
                 STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. ETC.

                          SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

             (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                          B

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

       Compensation-Award of-Appeal by claimants for enha11ce-
n1ent-High Court granting compensation at Rs. 1000 per cent-On appeal by C
ciaimants for fwther enhancement held : Ten months prior to the date of
Notification, claimants assessed the compensation at Rs. 350 per cent and .
offered to sell at that rate-High Court awarded compensation at Rs. 1000
per cent which is three times more than what was offered by the claimants
themselves-No inteiference called for to increase fwther compensation.
                                                                             D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4123 of
1991.

     From the Judgment and order dated 17.9.90 of the Kerala High
Court in L.A.A. No. 270 of 1985.
                                                                             E
        With Civil Appeal Nos. 4124/91 and 11812/95.

     T.L. V. Iyer, Ramesh Babu, M.R. B.V. Deepak, M.T. George and
Ms. Malini Poduval (NP) for the Appellants.

     G. Viswanath Iyer, T.G.N. Nair and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the            F
Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act,
1950 which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894   G
(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     H
                                      441
    442                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B contended that the lands under Exs. A-6 to A-B, 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
c 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 refer-
  ence 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
D 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.
E In view of this circumstance, it does not warrant more compensation than
  has been awarded by the High Court.

         Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises
  for consideration is: what would be the responsible compensation with the
F 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 were purchased by common institution from the persons, brothers
  and sisters, which happened to be contiguous to their institution for better
  utilisation. Under those circumstances, they cannot be automatically of-
G fered as comparable sales for the lands in question. Admittedly, the lands
  are situated outside Alwaye Municipal limits as on the date of notification.
  The High Court having considered the totality of the facts and circumstan-
  ces 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
H was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State did not file any
                          G.MATilEWv. STATE                             443

appeal.                                                                        A
       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      B
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 man-
datory duty of the Court to consider the entire evidence by applying the       C
tests and principle of law as settled by this Court in assessing the compen-
sation and to find out as to what would be the reasonable market value
which the lands are capable to command in open market. It 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           D
interference to increase further compensation.

       The appeals are dismissed, but without costs.

G.N.                                                    Appeals dismissed.