IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 667 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.103/2006 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, KOZHIKODE CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, K.S.E.B. PREMISES, UGRAPURAM P.O., AREACODE-673 639. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & SUPPL.CLAIMANTS & IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU VISHNU NAMBOODIRI (DIED) PARVATHI ANTHARJANAM, W/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 2. SAVITHRI, D/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 3. DEVAKI, D/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 4. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 5. PARVATHI, D/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 6. DAMODARAN, S/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 7. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.KANTHAKKARA PULOORMANNA ILLATHU LATE VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, CHEMMARAKKATTUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R8 BYSR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 670 OF 2010 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 667, 670, 735 & 751 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. is in appeal. The acquisition was of property in Areacode Village of Malappuram District. The acquisition was for the purpose of establishing a 400 K.V. Sub Station for the appellant corporation. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 19-5-2005. Then lands were garden lands. The land acquisition officer awarded various rates as detailed in the schedule forming part of paragraph 1 of the impugned judgment. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment after discarding Ext.A1 document and the evidence of AW-1 the claimant would notice that there was a time gap of 11 months between the date of Section 4(1) notification and the date of the basis document. Taking the positive as well as negative aspects LAA. 667/10 etc. -2- pertaining to basis land in comparison with the acquired land into account the learned Judge would enhance the value by 25% over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer and answer the references accordingly. 2. In these appeals the requisitioning authority has raised various grounds and Sri.K.P.Dandapani, learned senior counsel for the appellant addressed us extensively on the basis of those grounds. According to Mr. Dandapani, it is purely on guess work that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted enhancement as per the impugned judgment. According to him, having found that the basis document was the only dependable document, the maximum that could have been done by the learned Sub Judge was to award a slight enhancement for passage of time. Passage of time in this case was only 11 months. The area in question was purely a rural area. According to him, enhancement by more than 11%, at any rate, is bad. 3. We have very anxiously considered the submissions LAA. 667/10 etc. -3- made by the learned senior counsel. We have scanned the impugned judgment. We notice that it is on appreciating the entire evidence which came on record that the learned Sub Judge re-fixed the land value and not solely relying on the basis document. It can never be in dispute that the best method of determination of land value in land acquisition cases is on the basis of values revealed from comparable sale documents. But then oral evidence adduced by the parties and reports submitted by commissioners on the basis of local inspection and even the observations of the awarding officer in the notes to award, also constitute evidence. The Reference Court is expected to sift the entire evidence for the purpose of arriving at what according to him is the value which a willing seller would have received from a willing purchaser. To a certain extent determination of market value in land acquisition cases will involve guess work. Any guess will be a good guess only if it is founded on evidence oral or documentary available in the case. LAA. 667/10 etc. -4- Having kept these principles in mind we are of the view that the requisition authority or for that matter the Government cannot have any legitimate grievance about the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment. 4. We expressed our views regarding the correctness of the market value re-determined under the impugned judgment to the learned senior counsel. The learned counsel would at this juncture seek our leave to withdraw from the appeals. We are inclined to grant leave. All the appeals will stand dismissed as withdrawn. Refund one-half of the court fee remitted on the appeal memoranda to the appellant or their counsel. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. 667/10 etc. -5-