IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 177 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.2/2003 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. RAILWY, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.V. MADHAVI, PADIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR. 2. PADIKKAL HARIDASAN, PADIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR. 3. PADIKKAL SUBRAMANYAN, PADIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PALLIKUNNU,KANNUR. 4. PADIKKAL REMAVATHY, PADIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR. 5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KANNUR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 177 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We are not inclined to admit this appeal which pertains to acquisition of garden land as well as wet land situated within the limits of the Kannur Municipal Town for the purpose of doubling of the railway track. The relevant section 4 (1) notification was published on 3/1/2001. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.19,600/- per Are for garden land and at the rate of Rs.20,950/- per Are for wet land. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 20/2/1996 and the oral testimony of AW1 claimant on the side of the claimant apart from Ext.X1 commission report. On the side of the Government, it consisted of oral evidence of RW1 - village assistant. Ext.A1 was in respect of the property comparable to the acquired property. But, a building also stood on Ext.A1 property. Ext.A1 revealed land value of Rs.50,000/- per cent, but no separate land value had been shown for the building. The advocate commissioner had recommended for land value of L.A.A..No.177/2009 2 Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- per cent for garden lands. The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that the value revealed in Ext.A1 cannot be straight away accepted since there was no evidence on the basis of which the contention of the claimant that the building which existed on Ext.A1 property was practically valueless could be accepted. At the same time, Ext.A1 was relied on by the court to find that the market value of the land in the area was much more than what was awarded by the land acquisition officer. Relying on the oral testimony of RW1, the learned Judge found that the basis property, unlike the acquired property, did not have any road access, and accordingly, in our opinion, rightly held that property covered by the basis document could not be relied on. Ultimately what the learned Judge did was to arrive at the conclusion that correct market value of garden lands at the time of acquisition was Rs.14,000/- per cent and of wet land at the relevant time is Rs.2000/- per cent. Even though the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have turned on guess work, we feel that the guess made by the learned Judge was a good guess in the sense that guess is made by the learned Judge on the basis of the evidence which was adduced L.A.A..No.177/2009 3 by the parties. After all the property was situated very near to the important institutions and establishments within the Kannur Municipal Town. Basis document was rightly found to be not dependable. Though correct value for the building is not shown, the claimant's version that the building was not separately valued in Ext.A1 in view of the obvious situation that the building was practically valueless cannot be said to be totally incorrect. We are of the view that it is more or less the correct market value of the acquired property which has been arrived at by the learned Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk