(2012) 268 KLR 956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI 

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/31ST SRAVANA 1934 

LA.App..No. 1447 of 2007 ( ) 

---------------------------- 

LAR.49/2005 of SUB COURT, PALA 

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: 

---------------------- 

LILLYKUTTY. W/O V.V.ABRAHAM, VETTOOR, PADINJATTUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR. 

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS 

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 

------------------------- 

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL 

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 08-2012, ALONG WITH LAA. NO. 1487 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 

LAA. Nos. 1447 & 1487 of 2007 

----------------------------------------------- 

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2012 

Head Note:-

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 - Properties of the husband and wife as included in two different categories - Held, properties were lying contiguously and that the husband and wife were enjoying the properties as common holding of the family - Whatever advantages the husband's property was enjoying were available to the wife's property also through her husband's property - Under the social conditions prevailing in the State there is justification for treating these properties of the husband and wife, lying together and contiguously as one single holding of the family - the property of the husband and wife can be included in one and the same category. 

J U D G M E N T 

Pius C.Kuriakose, J. 

LAA. No. 1447 of 2007 is directed against the award in LAR. No. 49 of 2005, while LAA. No. 1487 of 2007 is directed against the award in LAR. No. 45 of 2005. The awards in these two references were passed as common award after conducting joint trial by the Reference Court. The appellant in LAA. No. 1147 of 2007 is the wife of the appellant in LAA. No. 1487 of 2007. The acquisition was of property in Kuruvilangad Village for the purpose of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The husband's property was included by the land acquisition officer in category - IV - reclaimed land with PWD road frontage. Wife's property which was lying contiguous to the husband's property was however, included by the land acquisition officer in category - V only - reclaimed land with no road frontage. For property included in category - IV, the land acquisition officer awarded `10,639/- per Are relying on the basis document. For the wife's property which was included in category - V he awarded only lesser value of `7447/- per Are. Before the reference court the evidence mainly relied on by the appellants were Ext.A2 sale deed and Ext. C-1 Commissioner's report, apart from the oral evidence. Ext. A2 was a sale deed 10-4-2003 pertaining to 19.25 cents of land. Ext.A2 reflected a land value of `33,767/- per Are. Ext.A2 was discarded by the learned Sub Judge from consideration for the reason that A2 pertains to dry land while the property under acquisition was reclaimed land. The learned Sub Judge on evaluating evidence other than Ext.A2 would re-fix the value of the husband's property in category - IV at `25,000/- per Are. The value of the wife's property which was retained by the learned Sub Judge in category - V itself was proportionately enhanced to `16,000/- per Are. In the appeal preferred by the wife the main ground that she urges is that her property also should have been included in category - IV and given more value as is awarded to her husband's property. There is a common ground that the value re-fixed by the court is inadequate. 

2. We have heard the submissions of Mr. P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt. Rose Michael, learned Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr. Haridas drew our attention to Ext.A2 and C-1. Reading over to us the schedule description in A2 he submitted that A2 property was also reclaimed land. According to him, the finding by the learned Sub Judge that A2 is original dry land is contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Haridas submitted that the appellants being husband and wife were enjoying their properties under acquisition as a common holding. These properties were lying contiguously. The wife's property had access to PWD road through her own husband's property. Hence there was no justification for including these properties in two different category. 

3. The learned Govt. Pleader Smt. Rose Michael would oppose the submissions of Mr. Haridas. According to her even though it is stated in Ext. A2 that her property is reclaimed land the reality on the date of A2 was that there were very valuable improvements on A2 property. Therefore for all practical purposes the property was as good as original dry land. 

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence. We have considered the impugned award in detail. We cannot approve the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Sub Judge to treat the properties of the husband and wife as included in two different categories. It is in evidence that the properties were lying contiguously and that the husband and wife were enjoying the properties as common holding of the family. Whatever advantages the husband's property was enjoying were available to the wife's property also through her husband's property. Under the social conditions prevailing in the State there is justification for treating these properties of the husband and wife, lying together and contiguously as one single holding of the family. We are therefore of the view that the property of the husband and wife can be included in one and the same category. We therefore include the property of the appellant in LAA. No. 1447 of 2007 also in category - IV. 

5. Now we come to the question of correct value to be awarded for properties in category - IV. A reading of the impugned award shows that it was on the reason that A2 property is dry land unlike the property under acquisition which is reclaimed land that the learned Sub Judge discarded. A reading of A2 shows that A2 property was also reclaimed land. May be reclamation of A2 property was done much earlier than the reclamation of the properties under acquisition. We do find that A2 property could claim slight superiority over the property under acquisition. We notice that A2 is executed about one year prior to the notification. Taking all relevant inputs into account relying on A2 we re-fix the value of lands included by the LA Officer and the Court in category - IV at `30,000/- per Are. This means that the value of lands belonging to both the appellants will stand re-fixed at `30,000/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the L. A. Act subject to conditions that this court has imposed while condoning the delay in the matter of filing of the appeal. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the appellants have remitted the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum. 

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) 

(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) 

ksv/- 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI 

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/29TH POUSHA 1933 

LAA.No. 538 of 2010 (D) & C.O. No. 96 OF 2010 

----------------------- 

LAR.296/2006 of SUB COURT, THALASSERY 

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT IN LAR: 

------------------------------ 

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR 

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT & R2 IN LAR: 

----------------------------------- 

1. A.P.MOIDU, S/O. ABOO, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM.(DIED) 

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP., KANNUR. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 

3. NASEEMA P.K. W/O LATE A.P.MOIDU, AGED 52, NAFEESA MANZIL, KOOTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, KANNUR, PIN 670643 

4. ARSHAD P.K. S/O A.P. MOIDU, AGED 32, DO. 

5. AFSAL P.K. S/O A.P.MOIDU, AGED 30, DO. 

6. NAFREENA P.K. D/O A.P.MOIDU, AGED 25, DO. 

ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT. 26-7-11 IN IA. 2189 OF 2011. 

R,R BY SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN R,R BY SRI.A.K.GOPALAN 

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19- 01-2012, ALONG WITH CO. 96/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 

LAA. No. 538 of 2010 & C.O. No. 96 of 2010 

------------------------------------------------------ 

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2012 

Head Note:-

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - Compensation for loss of earnings or loss of business - While assessing the loss suffered during the time required, the reference court is expected to allow only the normal time to restart the business and not the time which may be taken by a lethargic person who on account of his unwillingness to part with the business premises under acquisition thinks in terms of restarting the business only after he is dispossessed. In cases where the acquisition proceeds under the ordinary provisions, the scope for awarding compensation under clause fourthly for loss of earnings will be very limited. 

J U D G M E N T 

Pius C.Kuriakose, J. 

The Government is the appellant in LAA No.538 of 2010 and the memorandum of cross objections is filed by the claimant. The property under acquisition was in Kuthuparamba Village and the acquisition was for the purpose of up-gradation of Thalassery-Valavupara Road pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 28/01/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per Cent. The Reference Court under the impugned award re-fixed the land value at Rs.1 lakh per Cent. Apart from that the Reference Court awarded further compensation of Rs.50,000/- for "loss of earnings/loss of business". The Government contends that the market value re-fixed by the Reference Court is excessive. The Government also contends that the award of  Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and business is unauthorised. In the memorandum of cross objections filed by the claimant, it is urged that the land value ought to have been re-fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.3 lakhs per Cent. 

2. We have heard the submissions of learned senior Government Pleader and Shri P. U. Shailajan, learned counsel for the cross objector claimant. Our attention was drawn by Sri. Shailajan to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in L.A.A No.1049 of 2009. Learned Counsel submitted that under the judgment in L.A.A No.1049 of 2009, this Court has re-fixed the value of the property under acquisition in that case at Rs.75,000/-. It is argued that by that judgment, this Court has given indirect approval to the award of Rs.1 lakh per Cent in the present appeal in view of the fact that the present property is superior. It was submitted that the land under acquisition in this appeal is situated only 20 metres away from Kuthuparamba bus stand, unlike the land involved in L.A.A No.1049 of 2009 which is situated 200 metres away from the bus stand. The learned counsel submitted that the property was situated almost adjacent to the bus stand and therefore, there is justification for awarding at least Rs.1,50,000/- per Cent. 

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, per contra submitted that it is not correct to say that this Court in judgment in L.A.A No.1049 of 2009 has approved the award of Rs.1 lakh per Cent to the property involved in this appeal. This appeal was never considered by this Court along with L.A.A No.1049 of 2009. The maximum increase over that amount which can be awarded for the property involved in this appeal is Rs.10,000/- per Cent. The learned senior Government Pleader would very strongly assail the award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and business. The learned senior Government Pleader referred to Section 23(1) Clause fifthly and submitted that what is contemplated under that clause is only the reasonable expenses incidental to the shifting of the residence or place of business. Towards shifting charges the award of Rs.50,000/- is quite excessive. 

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have taken into account the judgment of this Court in LAA. No. 1049 of 2009. We are unable to accept the submission of Sri.P.U.Shailajan that by the judgment in LAA. No. 1049 of 2009 this court has given indirect approval to the award which is impugned in this case. At the same time we keep in mind the fact that this court awarded Rs.75,000/- per cent to the property covered by the judgment in LAA No. 1049 of 2009 and the land under acquisition in this case is nearer to the Municipal Bus Stand and other important institutions than the property covered by LAA. No. 1049 of 2009. According to us, there is justification for awarding more land value for the property in this case than the property covered by LAA. No. 1049 of 2009. We re-fix the value of the land under acquisition in this case at Rs.75,000/- per cent. 

5. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned senior Govt. Pleader that the award of Rs.50,000/- by the learned Subordinate Judge towards loss of earnings from business is not warranted. Clause fourthly of sub- section (1) of Section 23 is the provision which enables the reference court to award compensation with reference to the earnings of the land owner. Clause fourthly is extracted as follows: 

23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation:-- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration-- xxx xxx xxx 

Fourthly: The damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;" 

As there was an argument from the part of the learned senior Government Pleader that the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the court below can only be towards shifting charges; it is necessary to extract clause fifthly of sub- section (1) of Section 23 which deals with shifting charges. 

"Fifthly: if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change;" 

The claimant in the present appeal was conducting footwear business, while the claimants in two other cases which were jointly tried along with the present case were conducting stationary business and studio respectively. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment awarded a uniform sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and business loss on account of acquisition in all the three cases. What we find from the judgment is that apart from referring to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and saying that under the said section "can take into consideration the aspects of change or residence or place of business and also the damages caused due to injurious affection of the property or in any other manner the acquisition affects his earnings", there is no detailed or independent consideration of the amount to be awarded to the claimants towards those counts. What is discernible from the impugned judgment is only that there was a claim of loss of earnings and the court below awarded Rs.50,000/- towards that claim. We are called upon to decide whether the award of so much amount towards loss of earnings by the reference court is justified. We may clarify now that the amount has been awarded clearly towards loss of earnings/loss of business and not as shifting charges. The award purports to be under clause fourthly of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In view of the importance of the issue raised we called upon both sides to address further arguments regarding the above point. 

6. Sri. Shailajan would place strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Dutta v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 388 and argue that loss of earnings or business which is in fact a movable property belonging to the owner is the loss of business earnings suffered by the owner whose property is acquired on account of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Mr. Shailajan relied also on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Krishna Udayar, 1984 KLT 617 to argue that as it is the business premises of the owner which has been acquired and as it is no longer possible for the claimant to conduct business in the property remaining after the acquisition, business loss or loss of earnings has to be calculated and awarded under clause thirdly and fourthly of sub-section (1) of Section 23. Per contra the learned senior Government Pleader Mr. Syamkumar would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 640. It was argued by the learned senior Govt. Pleader on the basis of the above decision that the mere fact that the claimant who was conducting a poultry farm on the acquired property was displaced on account of the acquisition and he could not resuscitate himself by establishing a poultry farm business anywhere, cannot be a ground under clause fourthly to determine the compensation on that basis and to have loss of earnings till date of resettlement in that behalf. On the basis of the same decision it was submitted that in terms of clause fifthly of Section 23(1) the mere fact that a claimant could secure the alternative land only in an unsecured place for setting up his business cannot be a ground entitling him to claim compensation under clause fifthly. What is contemplated under clause fourthly of Section 23(1) is only the loss of earnings resulting from immediate dispossession from the place of business and not the loss of earnings resulting over a fairly long period till the owner resettles his business elsewhere, so submitted the learned Senior Govt. Pleader on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Dutt v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 2831. 

7. The ratio emerging on a cumulative consideration of the three judgments of the Supreme Court, i.e., Ramesh Dutta v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 388, Ramesh Dutt v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 2831 and Jaspal Singh v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 640 is that compensation for loss of earnings or loss of business contemplated by clause fourthly of Section 23(1) is not the compensation for the loss suffered by a business man who has been deprived of his business premises as a direct result of the acquisition. So also the above compensation is not a compensation for the loss resulting from his inability to secure an equally ideal place for relocating his business or from the fall in his business earnings on account of relocating of the business in another premises not so ideal for business as the premises acquired. What is contemplated is the damage sustained by a person at the time of taking possession by reason of his business earnings being affected on account of such taking possession. The loss can include the loss during "the time that would be required to restart his business". Here again while assessing the loss suffered during the time required, the reference court is expected to allow only the normal time to restart the business and not the time which may be taken by a lethargic person who on account of his unwillingness to part with the business premises under acquisition thinks in terms of restarting the business only after he is dispossessed. In cases where the acquisition proceeds under the ordinary provisions, the scope for awarding compensation under clause fourthly for loss of earnings will be very limited. But in cases where the acquisition proceeds under the emergency provisions of Section 17 where even before the award is passed possession is taken over there may be more scope to award compensation for loss of earnings under clause fourthly as in such cases normal time will have to be allowed to the business man who has been deprived of his premises to relocate the business. 'Ramesh Dutt' was a case where the emergency provisions were invoked; as specifically referred to by the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of its judgment (2004)7 SCC 388. But in the present case the acquisition proceeded under the ordinary provisions. The claimant was put to notice of the impending acquisition and deprivation of the business premises sufficiently early. In the present case, compensation towards loss of earnings could only have been the minimum loss of earnings at the time of taking possession, together with reasonable charges for shifting his business could have been awarded under clause fifthly of Section 23(1). As rightly argued by the learned senior Government Pleader clause thirdly of Section 24 which deals with matters to be neglected in determining compensation should deter the reference court from awarding exorbitant compensation towards loss of earnings; as obviously in private sales such loss cannot be claimed by a vendor from his vendee. 

8. Now coming specifically to the facts of this case, it is seen on reading the claim statement filed by the respondent that what he has claimed is loss of earnings every year at the rate of Rs.50,000/- as though the footwear business which he used to conduct has been lost to him once and for all. But it was fairly submitted before us by Sri. P.U. Shailajan, learned counsel for the claimant that at a distance of some 200 metres or so, from the acquired property the claimant/respondent started a new footwear shop which is even now functioning. No evidence at all is adduced as to any difficulties experienced by the claimant in securing the new premises or also as to any fall in the business profits on relocating the business at a place 200 metres away. Thus the evidence in the case falls short of holding that the claimant respondent is entitled for award of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earnings. In the absence of such evidence the maximum that could have been granted was Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings and loss resulting from shifting of business on guess estimates in a reasonable manner. According to us the award has to be modified. The compensation towards earnings/loss of business has to be reduced to Rs.10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 

9. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. C.O. is disposed of. On the re-fixed land value the claimant respondent will be entitled for all statutory benefits. On the re-fixed sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded under clause fourthly and fifthly of Section 23(1) the claimant will be entitled only for interest under Section 28. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. 

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) ksv/- 

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pius C. Kuriakose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Harilal

L.A.A. No. 534 of 2011

L.A.A. No. 552 of 2011

L.A.A. No. 555 of 2011

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2011

Head Note:-

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 18, 24(6) and 12 - It is trite that awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer are only offers. The awardees are free to accept or not to accept those offers.

For Appellants:-

• R. Rajesh Kormath

For Respondents:-

• C.R. Shyamkumar

J U D G M E N T

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. The claimants are the appellants. Their properties in Malappuram village situated within the limits of Malappuram Municipal town and at a distance of hardly 500 meters from the civil station in Malappuram town was acquired for the construction of approach road to Ummathoor - Aanakadavu bridge. The acquisition was on the basis of Section 4(1) notification which was published on 14/11/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a particular basis document and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5008.29 per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied mainly on Exts. A1 and A2 sales documents. Ext. A1 document was a pre notification document executed about two and half years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification in favour of Malappuram District Police Co-operative Society and reflected land value at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per cent. Ext. A2 also reflected the same rate of land value. However, A2 was a post notification document executed on 10/10/2006. Apart from Exts. A1 and A2, the appellants relied also on Exts. X1 and X2 commission reports submitted by the very same advocate in two of the three cases which were involved in these appeals. The commissioner’s reports were to the effect that the properties were situated in a locality with several locational advantages. Under the impugned common judgment the learned Sub Judge has confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, Exts. A1 and A2 properties, unlike the properties under acquisition, were situated very near to the Malappuram town. For that reason no reliance was placed on Exts. A1 and A2. The learned Subordinate Judge has blamed the claimants for not having challenged the rejection by the Land Acquisition Officer of documents which reflected much higher value than the value reflected in the basis documents. The learned Sub Judge also noticed that because of emergence of the approach road pursuant to the acquisition the value of those properties of the claimants, which were left out after acquisition, has increased considerably thus benefiting the appellants. The learned Subordinate Judge was more inspired by the oral evidence adduced by RW 1 than by the oral evidence adduced by the claimants. Ultimately, the learned Sub Judge would approve the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and answer the reference holding that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is the correct market value of the property under acquisition.

2. In these appeals various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Reference Court. According to the appellants, even though there is justification for fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.90,000/- per cent for reducing litigational costs they are limiting their claims to Rs.20,000/- per cent only.

3. Sri. Rajesh R. Kormath learned counsel for the appellants addressed us on the basis of the various grounds raised. The learned counsel read over to us certain portions of the notes to award as well as the impugned judgment. According to him, clause sixthly of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act specifically provides that any increase in the value of the unacquired property on account of the acquisition is an aspect to be neglected by the Reference Court while fixing the compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the observation of the learned Sub Judge that the properties covered by Exts. A1 and A2 are nearer to Malappuram town is not correct. The acquired properties were also very much near to Malappuram town, situated within the limits of Malappuram Municipality and at a distance of hardly 500 meters away from the Malappuram Collectorate.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. C. R. Shyamkumar would fairly agree that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken into account irrelevant considerations prohibited by clause sixthly of Section 24 of the Act while passing the award. According to him, the matter may have to be remanded to the Reference Court directing the Reference Court to pass a fresh award. The Government Pleader submitted that there will not be any serious objection in opportunity being given to the appellants for adducing evidence. Mr. Rajesh Kormath submitted that all the appellants are impecunious persons and they would like to have the issue settled by this Court on the basis of whatever evidence is available on record.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the learned Subordinate Judge while answering the reference. Clause sixthly of Section 24 of LA Act, which deals with matters to be neglected by the Court while fixing compensation, reads as follows;

“Sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired, will be put.”

The statute under Section 24 specifically forbids the Court from taking into account the increase in the value of the unacquired land of the claimant resulting from the use to which the acquired land will be put by the acquisitioning authority.

6. So also we are surprised to find that the learned Sub Judge has blamed the appellants for not having challenged the rejection of a few documents reflecting higher value by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of passing the original award. It is trite that awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer are only offers. The awardees are free to accept or not to accept those offers. That in this case the parties did not accept the offer is evident from the fact that the claimant facilitated a reference of the issue of determination of the correct market value to the Court under Section 18. The Reference under Section 18 was registered at the instance of the claimant. The same amounts to expression of her dissatisfaction regarding the determination of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer and the entire procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer in arriving at the market value.

7. We now come to the important question of determining the correct market value of the property under acquisition. It has come out in evidence that the property was situated within the limits of the Malappuram Municipality. It was also come out in evidence that property was situated at a distance of hardly 500 meters from the Malappuram Collectorate. The properties were dry lands. Exs. A1 is a document in respect of land in the very same village executed two years and four months earlier. Of course A1 property was superior in the sense that the same was enjoying pucca road frontage. A2 is a post notification document. There is some evidence to hold that the acquired properties were also having road facility or at least pathway facility. We are sure that the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time was much more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and approved by the learned Subordinate Judge. On making a reappraisal of the evidence and keeping in mind all the inputs which are relevant while determining the market value of the land under acquisition, we refix the market vale of land involved in these three appeals at Rs.12,000/- per cent.

The appeals will stand allowed. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total refixed compensation. However, while decree is drafted and provison is made for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court while condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The appellants will be entitled for proportionate costs also.