IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 LA.App..No. 1762 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.119/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ IST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. S. MOHANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SYAMALA MANDIRAM, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, KAZHAKKUTTOM. 2. THE ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARK (KERALA), KARIVATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/REGISTRAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVE COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------ L.A.A.NO.1762 OF 2008-A ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT I am not inclined to admit this appeal which pertains to acquisition of land in Kazhakkkoottom - Menamkulam village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk for the purpose of Electronics Techno Park pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 5.4.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer, relying on a basis document, fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.11,812/= per Are. Before the reference court, the claimant was examined as AW1. He did not produce any documentary evidence. The respondents have not adduced any counter evidence. The only document produced was the award which contained copies of the basis document and the mahazar. In the opinion of the court below, the acquired property was superior to the basis property and there was sufficient reason for granting enhancement. But the learned judge noticed that the available evidence on the side of the respondents was only oral evidence and since proceeded to make a guess work as to what could have been the market value payable by a willing purchaser LAA.1762/08 . 2 if the property is sold by a willing seller. Ultimately, the learned judge by making guess work granted increase by 30% on the land value given by the L.A. Officer. The question is whether it is a good guess, that has been made by the court. In order that guess work is good, it should have some nexus to evidence on record. In the instant case there was oral evidence of AW1 to which there was no counter evidence. I think that the guess made by the learned judge was a reasonable and good one. I do not find any ground warranting interference with the same. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. cl LAA.1762/08 . 3