IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1441 of 2005(A) --------------------------------- LAR.248/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.I, KOZHIKODE. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H. DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT; --------------------------------- PUSHPA SUDHEENDRAN, JYOTHI BHAVAN, PANANGAD P.O., TRICHUR DIST. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1441 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Notice which was sent to the respondent by speed post with acknowledgment due as early as on 12/01/06 is yet to be returned. We invoke Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules and declare that service is complete. 2. This is an appeal by the Government. The purpose of the acquisition was expansion of mini bye pass road at Calicut. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 19/08/96. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.28,671/- per cent. The claimants produced Exts.A1 L. A. A. No.1441 of 2005 -2- and A2, Commissioner's Report, Ext.C1 to C4, oral evidence of AWs.1 and 2 and also Ext.X1. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on the documentary evidence produced by the parties. It was specifically found that there is no comparison between the properties covered by Ext.A2 and the property under acquisition. It was also noticed by the court that the party had not chosen to have a comparison of acquired property with Ext.A2 property by the Advocate Commissioner. Ultimately it is by doing guess work alone that the land value was enhanced to Rs.75,000/- per cent. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in granting enhancement by 162% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer relying solely on guess work. Determination of market value is an exercise to be done by the Reference Court on the L. A. A. No.1441 of 2005 -3- basis of legal evidence which comes on record. Under the above circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the LAR.248/2000 to the Reference Court. That court is directed to permit both sides to adduce further evidence in support of their rival contentions and to pass a revised judgment. Revised judgment as directed above will be passed by the learned Subordinate Judge within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. 3. This appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-