A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the claimant in L.A.R.77 of 2003 by which the land value was given only at the rate of Rs. 200/- per cent. The total extent of land involved in the acquisition is 206 cents. The land was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 published on 25.6.1999. A large extent of land was acquired for the purpose of formation of integrated industrial town ship at Kanjikode. The property of the petitioner was lying as a pond. The land acquisition officer therefore treated the pond as Un Assessed land and granted compensation only at a nominal amount of Rs. 100/- per cent.
(2.) The claimant having objected to the award, the matter was referred to the Sub Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court by a common order dated 20.10.2010 refixed the land value at Rs. 200/- per cent.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the aforesaid judgment submits that though the property was a pond insofar as the appellant was the title holder, he was entitled for the value of the property. Though comparable sale method cannot be adopted in regard to a pond, still the pond can be valued on the basis of proper valuation method suggested by Parks on valuation. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court State of West Bengal v. Ganesh Chandra Mitra, Laws (Cal)1971 12 12 Dated 10.12.1971 . Paragraph 15 of the said judgment is relevant which reads as under. " 15. The method adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector appears to be erroneous. In the first place, there is no evidence that the bed of the tank is Gora III land. Secondly, it is curious that the bank of the tank should be valued at a much lesser price than the price of the tank land. The respondents claimed that the bank of the tank measuring 1.51 acres should be valued it the same rate as that of the homestead land. It appears from Parks' Principles and Practice of Valuations (4th Ed-Page 72) that the Courts have adopted during the past few years a method of valuing tanks at one-half the value of solid land. Although the learned author has termed this method as a Rule of Thumb method, in our opinion, in the absence of proper materials enabling the Court to determine the value of the tank in a logical and scientific manner, it will be unreasonable for the Court to adopt this method. The learned Additional District Judge has assessed the value of the tank land including the bank of the bank, that is, the entire 2.74 acres of land at ? ... "rd the rate allowed for the homestead land. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do find any unreasonableness in the decision of the learned Additional District Judge in valuing the tank land at ? ... "rd the value of the homestead land. We would accordingly overrule the contention of Mr.Das Gupta and uphold the finding of the learned Additional District Judge as to the value of the tank land.";