IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 962 of 2000(A) -------------------------- LAR.256/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/ESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT: ---------------------------- GEORGE JOHN, THRAKANZHIYATHU, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.JACOB MATHEW MANALIL SRI.P.R.MILTON THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8 /6 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.962/2000 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader has made very strenuous arguments on the basis of the various grounds raised in this appeal, having regard to the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge and the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimant, we are of the view that there is no justification for interfering with the refixation of the market value by the court below. The land acquisition officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.16,907/- per Are relying on a basis document, copy of which was not even produced by the State. The State did not adduce any counter evidence to the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant. The appellant produced Exts.A1, A2, A3. Exts.A1 and A2 were rejected by the reference court since they were post notification documents. Ext.A3 however, was a pre notification document, which revealed land value of Rs.75,000/- per cent. 2. The court below did not rely on Ext.A3 either. What the L.A.A.No.962/2002 2 What the court below did was to notice the importance of the locality and the rebutted evidence of Aws 1 and 2 and refix the land value at Rs.30,000/- per Are. Thus awarded enhanced land value of Rs.13093/- per Are to the respondent claimant. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that though the judgment is on the basis of guess work, the guess work had some foundation on the evidence on record and therefore it was a good guess, which was made by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time, which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any reason for entertaining this appeal. This appeal will stand dismissed, however no order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk