IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 LA.App..No. 1834 of 2007() -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LAR 21,23,24/2000 & LAR 1,2/2001 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ---------------------- CHERIYAN JOHN, KADAVIL THEKKETHIL MUTTATHUKONAM, CHENNEERKARA. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA.T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 1834 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant who is aggrieved by the award of the land acquisition reference court. 1.8 Ares of land belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purposes of construction of an approach road and bridge over Achancovil river. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 21,739/- per Are. Before the reference court, the evidence on the side of appellant-claimant and the claimants in certain other cases which was also tried along with the appellant's case consisted of Ext.A1 sale document as well as oral testimonies of AWs 1 to 3. There was Ext.C1 Commissioner's report, Ext.C2 Mahazer and Ext.C3 rough sketch prepared by the Commissioner. AW2 was the Commissioner and AW3 was a party to Ext.A1 document relied on by the claimants for supporting their claim for enhancement. Ext.A1 was a post notification document executed some three years after the relevant notification under section 4(1). Ext.A1 revealed a land value of Rs. 59322/- per cent. The learned LAA.No.1834/07 2 Subordinate Judge found and rightly also that the reliance placed on Ext.R2 basis document was not justified and that Ext.R2 document did not reveal the correct market value of the acquired property. At the same time the learned Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 despite the evidence of AW3. According to the learned Judge, post notification document could be relied on only if there is evidence to hold that the acquisition has not resulted in increase of land value in the locality. The learned Judge assumed that a new bridge near to a property will certainly increase the land value of the neighbouring properties. It cannot be said that the assumption of the learned Judge regarding increase in the land value in the neighbourhood on account of the emergence of a new bridge connecting a river which flows nearby is unreasonable. Ultimately, it was on a guess work that the learned Judge refixed the land value at 20% above what has been awarded by the officer. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence which was on record before the court below including the testimony of Commissioner and Commissioner's report, I feel that on a better guess made on the LAA.No.1834/07 3 available evidence, the land value should have been refixed at 40% above the value awarded by the land acquisition officer. Accordingly, the value of the petitioner's properties are refixed at Rs.30,435/- ( Rupees Thirty thousand four hundred and thirty five only). The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the enhanced land value as redetermined under this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their costs in the appeal. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1834/07 4