IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 239 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.44/2005 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- M.S.RAJEEVAN, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, KURAVILANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3-7-09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 239 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and the case pertains to acquisition for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The property was in Kuravilangad Village. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 21- 7-2004 The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7447/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment increased the same by 20% and re-fixed the same at Rs.8937/-. Being aggrieved, this appeal is preferred. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Govt. Pleader for the Government. Mr. Haridas would assail the judgment of the reference court while Smt.Latha T.Thankappan would support the same. It is seen that the appellant claimant LAA. No. 239/07 -2- relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds as well as Ext.C1 Commission report. C1 report was to the effect that the distance between the acquired property and the property covered by A2 was just 300 metres. Ext.A2 is a document of 1995 executed nine years back to section 4(1) notification. A2 revealed a higher land value. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on A2 for the reason that unlike the acquired property, A2 property was having direct road frontage. The appellant endeavoured to show that A2 property did not enjoy direct road frontage but failed. There is a drain in between the margin of the road and A2 property. We are of the view that the court below was justified in treating A2 property as property having direct road frontage. We are also in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge who has stated that the value of A2 can never be granted to the LAA. No. 239/07 -3- acquired property. At the same time, the fact that A2 property and acquired property were in Kuravilangad Village and that the distance was only 300 metres, should not have been ignored. We feel that some reliance can be placed on A2 also for determining market value of the acquired property. Determination of market value in land acquisition cases will involve guess work to some extent. In fact, it is by doing guess work and applying the rule of thump that the learned Subordinate Judge himself granted 20% enhancement. On a better guess relying on Ext.A2 also to a certain extent the market value of the acquired property can be reasonably fixed at Rs.13,000/- per Are. The appeal will stand allowed to that extent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the L.A. Act on the enhanced compensation to which he becomes LAA. No. 239/07 -4- eligible by virtue of our re-fixation of the market value under this judgment. Appeal is allowed as above, but without any order as to costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/-