Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13.4. As far as these appeals are concerned, we are required to consider the impact of the restrictions imposed by Explanations 1 and 3. We will deal with Explanation 1 first. Explanation 1 to Section 26(1)(a) provides that a document executed within a period of 3 years in relation L.A.A. No.226 of 2020 and Connected cases 69 2025:KER:8449 to property in the near vicinity has to be considered for arriving at the market value. The said restrictive covenant will become unworkable if, in a given case, if there is no document executed in the vicinity of the area during the preceding three years from the date of the acquisition. Therefore, we are inclined to think that Explanation 1 cannot apply in all circumstances, and in the absence of an exemplar, the court will have to step in and apply the principles of guesstimation.

19. When we analyze the evidence as above, we find that the extraordinary situation which presented itself before us could have been envisaged by the legislature while framing the Statute. However, the courts cannot remain oblivious of an unworkable situation presented before it which directly affects the right under Article 300-A of the L.A.A. No.226 of 2020 and Connected cases 74 2025:KER:8449 Constitution of India.

20. How best this impasse could be resolved will form the crux of the decision in these appeals. When we closely scrutinize the evidence, we notice that the property covered by Ext.B4 along with the property mentioned in Ext.A15 lies within 200 meters from the land acquired. But Ext.B4 is a document executed in the year 2012, and, therefore, we must necessarily add escalation of the price to Ext.B4 for the purpose of determining its actual market value as on the date of the notification.

21. Hence, in such a situation it may not be possible to insist that documents of three years old alone have to be looked into. Accepting the argument of the State will render the Statute unworkable and the court is not bound to accept an interpretation which will render the Statute redundant. Hence, we have no hesitation in our mind to reject the L.A.A. No.226 of 2020 and Connected cases 75 2025:KER:8449 argument of the State.

22. However, having held so, we find that the consideration of other exemplars assumes significance. A reading of Ext A15 reveals that the value of the land fixed during 2008 as per document No.3623 of 2008 is at Rs.4,40,909/- per cent, and if it is converted into Ares it will be Rs.10,89,045/-. It has come out in evidence through Ext.C1 report that the property covered by Ext.A15 is lying 100 meters from the land acquired and, therefore, it qualifies to be taken as the land in the close vicinity for the purpose of calculating the market value.