Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

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

Decided
7 January 2016
Judges listed
KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 635 · 2016 INSC 22
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Abatement is set aside.

p. 636, margin A

Delay in filing substitution application is condoned.

p. 636, margin A

Application for substitution not opposed and is, accordingly, allowed.

p. 636, margin B

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. ' 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 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.

p. 636, margin B

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.

p. 636, margin D

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.

p. 636, margin F

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 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 his conduct in Court are all . not really relevant. The fixation is mainly based on the factual position as revealed from the documents.

pp. 636–637, margin G

5

Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to land value for the acquired land fixed at Rs.17250/- per cent and they are also entitled for other statutory benefits in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

p. 637, margin C

6

Appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.

p. 637, margin D