IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 436 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.57/2001 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ KINATTINGAL SHAMSUNNISA, D/O. UMMERKHASI, W/O. MOHAMMED, KINATTINGAL HOUSE, NEAR 28TH MILE, P.O. NARUKARA, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 216 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. These are appeals by the Government and under challenge is the common judgment of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Manjeri in as many as ten cases. The acquisition was of property in Manjeri Village and was for the purpose of construction of Manjeri Bye-pass. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 9-9- 1997. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4255/- per cent. The reference court tried all the ten LARs jointly and the evidence consisted of oral evidence of Aws. 1 to 4 and RW-1, Exts.A1 to A5, Ext.R1 and Commissioners' reports X-1 (series). Exts.A1 and A5 were two documents which were relied on by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced land value. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008 -2- on Ext.A5 on reasons which we also feel are good. Commissioners' reports certainly reveal that the properties under acquisition had locational advantages and that the properties had the potentialities of having developed as building sites. What we notice from the judgment is that after rejecting Exts.A1 and A5 on good reasons the court below has granted enhancement by Rs.12,000/-. Thus the land value was enhanced by three times of what was awarded by the L.A. Officer solely on the basis of the Commissioners' reports and on a guess work which was done by the learned Sub Judge based on the oral evidence adduced by the parties. It is certainly correct to say that determination of market value in land acquisition cases will involve guess work and evaluation of imponderables. But we are unable to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having awarded enhancement by this LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008 -3- extent relying solely on guess work. There is another well settled principle that in order that guess work done by a Land Acquisition Court is a good guess work, the guess should have some nexus to the evidence on record. In this batch of cases, the two tangible items of evidence were A1 and A5, which were rejected by the reference court. Therefore in our opinion it is not a good guess that has been done by the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the market value of the property. 2. Sri. S.A. Saju, learned counsel for the respondents claimants sought for an opportunity to adduce further evidence in these cases and requested that the cases be remanded. Mr.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt. Pleader submits that in case this court is being inclined to accept the above request the interest of the State should be protected and it should be provided in the judgment that the claimants LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008 -4- who are responsible for the order of remand will not gain by way of statutory interest under section 28. We find force in the above submission of the learned Govt. Pleader. 3. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows: 4. The judgments and decrees under appeals are set aside. LAR. Nos. 74 & 57 of 2001 are remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri. That Court is directed to give one opportunity each to the claimants and also to the Government for adducing evidence. That Court will complete the further enquiry within three months of parties entering appearance before the Court below and pass revised judgment within one month thereafter. It is made clear that in case under the revised judgment the appellants become eligible for more than cent per cent of the value awarded by the L.A. Officer, such excess compensation LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008 -5- exceeding the cent per cent will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 during the period from 28-2- 2007 till the date of the revised judgments to be passed in these cases. Appeals are allowed by way of remand. No costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-