IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1457 of 2005(D) --------------------------- LAR.123/2003 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- 1. P.T.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.PARIYARI HAJI, PALLIYALUMTHOTTATHIL HOSUE, KNALOOR. 2. MARIMOONA, DO.DO. 3. ABDUL MAJEED, DO.DO. 4. SAIFUNNISA. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA FOR R1TO4 BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.3955/2005 IN L.A.A. 1457/2005 DISMISSED 14.7.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 1457 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Requisitioning Authority – Managing Director of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation is in respect of the award of the Reference Court in a case pertaining to the acquisition of 1.087 cents of land in R.S. No.11/6 of Kinaloor village for the purpose of widening of the Vattoli Bazar – Kinaloor road leading to Kinaloor Indusrial Growth Center. The relevant notification under Section 4 (1) is dated 12.4.1999. The Land acquisition Officer relying on the document which was produced before the reference court as Ext.R1 fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.3034/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 assignment deed dated 9.12.1997 and the oral testimony of AW1 one of the claimants in the cases which were being tried jointly by the reference court. On the side of the respondents the evidence consisted of Ext.R1, R2 and R3 documents apart from the testimony of RW1- L.A.A. No.1457/2005 2 the Revenue Inspector attached to the office of the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from that, there was Ext. C1- Commission report prepared by an Advocate on the basis of an inspection of the acquired properties as well as the properties covered by Ext.R1. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.K.Kunhabdulla the learned counsel for the respondents. Sri.Joby Cyriac would assail the award of the reference court stating that the learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ext.A1 assignment deed for taking ultimate decision in the case though Ext.A1 had been specifically discarded giving good reasons. As for the commission report, the learned counsel submitted that the advocate commissioner had not suggested any amount to be the correct market value for the acquired properties at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present market value of the property is Rupees Two Lakhs per cent and even on the crucial date of 4 (1) notification, the market value was more than what was reflected by Ext.A1. Sri.Kunhabdulla, the learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that L.A.A. No.1457/2005 3 the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have relied on Ext.A1 completely. The learned counsel would ultimately submit that in the event of this court becoming inclined to interfere with the award of the reference court, the matter may be remanded back to that court giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. 3. I have considered the rival submissions. Determination of market value in land acquisition cases will involve a certain amount of guess work. In the instant case on going through the judgment of the reference court, I find that the court has found on materials like Ext.C1 commission report that the acquired property was superior to the property covered by Ext.R1 basis document. Thus the view of the learned subordinate Judge that the claimant was entitled for more amounts than the value reflected in Ext.R1 cannot be said to be faulty. The learned counsel for the petitioner is certainly right in his submission that Ext.A1 document, the only sale documents put in evidence by the claimant to prove their claim for enhancement in the land value has been discarded by the court below from consideration for market value determination. It has been held by the court L.A.A. No.1457/2005 4 “ so the court refuses to place reliance on Ext.A1 document dated 9.9.1997 adduced in evidence from the side of the claimants”. But at the same time, it will be seen from the paragraph 13 of the judgment that while making guess as to what was the correct market value in the area at the relevant time, the court below has taken into account the value revealed by Ext.A1 and by Ext.R1. In this context, it should be noticed that the reason assigned by the court below for not placing reliance on Ext.A1 is the failure of the claimants to adduce evidence regarding A1. It is seen that Ext.A1 document was marked through AW1 claimant only. AW1 was not connected in any manner with the execution of A1. I feel that it would have been ideal if Ext.A1 had been proved by the claimant by examining persons connected with the execution of Ext.A1. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to remand the matter back to the reference court. But in view of the specific findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that the correct market value of the property is the market value reflected in Ext.R1, even as I remand the matter I am inclined to impose a condition. L.A.A. No.1457/2005 5 5. The Joby Cyriac submits that the entire decree debt is under deposit before the court below. Therefore, even as I remand the matter back to the reference court, there will be a direction to the execution court to permit the claimant/ respondent to withdraw fifty percent amounts subject to his liability to make refund in the light of the revised judgment which will be passed by the reference court pursuant to this judgment. The parties will appear before the reference court on 16.8.2008. The reference court will permit both sides to adduce further evidence and will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence if any adduced by the parties. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk