IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 896 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.121/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKAL RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT --------------------- AYYAPPAN KARUNAKARAN, KALEEKAL VEEDU,KILIKOLLUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.4847/2006 IN L.A. A.NO.896/2006 DISMISSED 17/9/2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.896/2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the Government pertains to the acquisition in Kilikollur Village pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) dated 23/11/1994 for doubling of Kayamkulam and Kollam railway line. The land acquisition officer, relying on Ext.R1 basis document, awarded the land value of Rs.19,688/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted on the side of the claimant of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 18/7/1994 reflecting land value of Rs.58,823/- per Are apart from the oral evidence of the claimants as PW-1. On the side of the appellant Government, the evidence consisted of Ext.R1 basis document and Ext.R2 group sketch. The learned subordinate judge did not place reliance either on Ext.R1 or on Ext.A1. The learned judge found that both these documents are not dependable. But ultimately, on his view that Ext.R1 was not at all reliable, what the learned judge did was to hold that the respondent L.A.A..No.896/2006 2 claimant was entitled for enhancement. Enhancement was arrived at purely on guess work. In land acquisition cases determination of market value to a certain extent can be made on guess work, provided the guess is relatable to some evidence, which was available on record. The question before me therefore, is whether it can be said that the guess made by the learned subordinate judge is a good guess relatable to the available evidence Ext.A1. R1, Ext.R2 sketch and oral testimony of PW1. I am afraid that is not a good guess that has been made by the learned subordinate judge. Ext.R1 reveals land value of Rs.24,700/- per Are. But, the acquisition officer would award only 19,688/- on the reason that Ext.R1 property was having advantage of public road frontage while the acquired property did not have any such advantage. The cut made on the value shown in Ext.R1 on the reason that the property did not have public road frontage is justified. But, at the same time, the awarding officer should have noticed that Ext.R1 was a document some two years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the awarding officer should have added at least 30% of the value determined by him, for passage of time. The amounts comes to L.A.A..No.896/2006 3 Rs.25,594/-. But, at the same time, having considered PW1's evidence and the group sketch, I am in agreement with the learned sub judge that Ext.R1 does not reveal the market value in the locality i.e. value which would have been paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller. It is not proper either to rely on Ext.A1 completely. Ext.A1 property was certainly superior to the acquired property. Ext.A1 property had direct frontage of the public road.(very same public road by the side of which Ext.R1 property was situated). I feel that the proper value, which could have been determined on a good guess based on Ext.R1 and Ext.A1, is the average of the value revealed by Ext.R1 and Ext.A1. 3. Accordingly, I conclude that the correct value, which would have been paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller for the acquired property, is Rs.42,209/-. Modifying the judgment and decree under appeal, I refix the value of the acquired land at Rs.42,209/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the respondent will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation on the basis as refixed by this judgment. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in L.A.A..No.896/2006 4 the circumstances, parties are directed to suffer their costs through out. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk