IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 746 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.426/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- BICHU MAYIN K., KAPPAD HOUSE, KARANTHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. 2. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE. SR.GOVT. PELADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH(NO MEMO) SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, ALONG WITH LAA. NO. 899/06 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 746 & 899 of 2006, LAA. No. 104 of 2008 & C.O. No. 76 of 2008 & LAA. No. 1251 of 2008 & C.O. No. 36/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. LAA. Nos. 746 and 899 of 2006 are preferred by the claimants while LAA. Nos. 104 and 1251 of 2008 are preferred by the Government. In the appeals preferred by the Government the claimants have filed cross objections. LAA. No. 899 of 2006 pertains to LAR. No. 58 of 2001. LAA. No. 1251 of 2008 pertains to LAR. No. 430 of 2000, LAA. No. 746 of 2006 pertains to LAR. No. 426 of 2000 and LAA. No. 104 of 2008 pertains to LAR. No. 431 of 2000. LAR. No. 430 of 2000 was decided by the reference court under a common judgment with LAR. No. 715 of 2003. LAR. No. 431 of 2000 was decided by a separate judgment. LAR. Nos. 426 of 2000 and 58 of 2001 were decided by another common judgment. The properties under acquisition were all situated in Kunnamangalam Village of Kozhikode Taluk. LAA. N0. 746/06 etc. -2- The acquisition was for the construction of a building for the Indian Institute of Management and for formation of a road leading to the premises of the I.I.M at Kozhikode. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 14-1- 1999. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13007/- per cent for the properties in LAR. No. 431 of 2000 which was re-fixed under the impugned judgment by the reference court at Rs.50,000/- per cent. In the appeals and cross objections filed by the claimants they contend that the enhancement granted by the reference court is inadequate while in the appeals preferred by the Government, the Government contends that the enhancement granted by the reference court is excessive. It is seen from the impugned judgments in these appeals that the reference court has deviated from the ratio fixed by the L.A. Officer in his award while awarding land value for the properties under acquisition. It is seen that the LAA. N0. 746/06 etc. -3- properties which were treated equally by the L.A. Officer in his award have been treated unequally by the learned reference court for the purpose of the court award. The impugned judgment does not disclose any reason as to why the ratio maintained by the L.A. Officer under his original award has been deviated by the reference court. Before us, it was conceded by all parties that the ratio maintained by the the L.A. Officer in his award between the market value of the land involved in these different cases was correct. The appreciation of the evidence which came on record before the reference court for determining the correct value of the properties under acquisition, which is the primary duty of a reference court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not satisfactory. Fixation of market value is an exercise to be done on the basis of the evidence which comes on record before the reference court. Of course, in land acquisition cases, determination of market value can LAA. N0. 746/06 etc. -4- involve guess work. But in order that the guess made by the reference court is a good guess, it must be referable to some evidence which is actually available on record. Having regard to the submissions addressed by counsel on both sides and on going through the impugned judgments we feel that all these cases should be remanded to the reference court, so that, that court can take fresh decision on the correct compensation to be paid to the landowners as land value for their properties which were acquired. We confirm the award of the reference court to the extent the same pertains to value of structures and buildings. But we set aside the awards to the extent the same pertains to fixation of market value of the land and remand all these LARs. back to reference court. Since the cases are going back to the reference court, that court will give opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. Fresh judgments will be passed re-fixing the market value of land on the basis of LAA. N0. 746/06 etc. -5- the entire evidence which comes on record. The reference court shall maintain the ratio maintained by the L.A. Officer in his award between the centage values granted in respect of the properties under acquisition in these cases. The appeals and cross objections are allowed by way of remand. Refund the court fee paid on the appeals preferred by the claimants and the memoranda of cross objections to the counsel for the claimant appellants and the cross objectors. Fresh judgment as directed above will be passed at the earliest and at any rate, within six months of receiving copy of this judgment. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/-