IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 641 of 2008() ----------------------------------- LAR.144/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN LAR ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN LAR ------------------------------------------------ SUKUMARI, D/O.SARASAMMA, POOVANGAL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L.A.A.NO.641 of 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court in LAR.No.144/2000 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kollam. The extent of acquisition involved in the land is 0.25 Arces which will come to 0.0680 cents of land. The Land Acquisition Court awarded an enhancement of 65%. It can be seen that two documents Exts.A1 and A2 were relied upon by the claimant to establish her case. The Land Acquisition Court found that Exts.A1 and A2 are not acceptable to establish the case of the claimant. But, it held that potentiality of the land has to taken into consideration and it accepted the evidence given by one of the claimants-AW1. But the court further went on to hold that there are no sufficient materials to fix it and therefore applying the guess work theory enhanced it by 65%. I am told that no appeals are preferred against the three other awards passed under the same common award. Here the extent involved is only 1.61 cents. : 2 : L.A.A.NO.641 of 2008 So I feel, the guess work employed by the learned Subordinate Judge need not be interfered in this case considering the extent of the land. I make it clear that this shall not be cited as a precedent because the court has accepted 65% as the enhanced land value in such cases. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : L.A.A.NO.641 of 2008