IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 164 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.5/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3 ------------------------------------------- 1. V.E.MUKUNDAN MENON, MANJULA NIVAS, DESAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SPL. TAHSILDAR (L.A.), THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R1 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 164 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority, the Kerala Water Authority, challenges in this appeal the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Thrissur. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Desamangalam Village for the purpose of construction of water tank by the Kerala Water Authority. Section 4(1) notification was published on 25/11/1997. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties in two categories and for the first category, he awarded value at the rate of Rs.4,800/- per Are and for the second category, he awarded value at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per Are. Even though the rationale of the categorisation was challenged by the claimant, the court below endorsed the categorisation and retained the categories. 2. Before the Reference Court, the claimant did not adduce any acceptable evidence regarding the correct value. The learned Subordinate Judge however would on guess work refix the land L.A.A.No.164/2011 2 value at Rs.9,000/- per Are and Rs.4,500/- per Are respectively. 3. Mainly two grounds are seen raised in this appeal. The first ground is that the claimant has not proved by adducing cogent evidence that he alone is entitled for compensation in the above said acquisition. It is quite possible that in future somebody else may come forward claiming the very same compensation. Smt.Ambika Devi learned counsel for the appellant addressed very strenuous arguments on the ground raised in the appeal memorandum. According to us, deposit or payment in response to the court award will give valid discharge to the requisition authority. If somebody else comes forward including the claimant's brother in future, it is a matter to be agitated between the claimant and that party in appropriate civil proceedings. With that observation, we turn down the above ground. 4. The other ground, which is urged and argued before us, was that the court below was not justified in giving this much of enhancement purely on guess work. We find some merit in the above argument. Answer of Sri.Sreejith the learned counsel for the claimant was that it is not correct to say that no evidence L.A.A.No.164/2011 3 was adduced. There was Ext.X1 commission report, which was relied on by the court below to approve the categorisation done by the LAO. Ext.X1 report shows that the property was situated in a very important locality . Mr.Sreejith also submitted that to a certain extent guess work is permissible in land acquisition cases. 5. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are in agreement with the argument of Mr.Sreejith that in land acquisition cases determination of market value of land under acquisition can involve a certain amount of guess work. But according to us, in order that the guess made by the learned Subordinate Judge is a good guess, it is necessary that the same should have some foundation in the evidence available on record. We feel that the rate fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is excessive. On a better guess, the market value of the land included in the first category can be refixed at Rs.8,400/- per Are and the market value of the land included in the second category can be refixed at Rs.4,200/- per Are. 6. Accordingly, allowing this appeal we refix the market value of the land included in the first category (for which the L.A.A.No.164/2011 4 LAO awarded Rs.4,800/- per Are) at Rs.8400/- per Are. Similarly, we refix the value of the land included in the second category ( for which the LAO has awarded Rs.2,400/- per Are) at Rs.4,200/- per Are. Needless to mention that the claimant will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total refixed compensation. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the entire court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk