IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / LA.App..No. 1840 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.4/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPL. TAHSILDAR, LA, NH NO.1, KAKKANAD . 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N.H.(B) DIVISION KODUNGALLUR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT:- ------------------------- HOWVA, W/O ABDUL AZEEZ, MAMMANCHERIPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM SMT.E.K.SAJNA SRI.M.A.MUNEER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 2317 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NOs.1840 & 2317 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Both these cases pertain to acquisition of land for the purpose of widening of NH 17. The properties were in Edappally village within the limits of Cochin Corporation. The relevant notification under Section 4(1) was on 14-03-2002. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.101860/- per Are corresponding to Rs.44864/- per cent. The reference court on an evaluation of the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, AW1 and 2, Exts.B1 and B2 and Exts.C1 to C2(a) would refix the land value at Rs. 153608/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 62164/- per cent. 2. Before us, learned Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji would assail the judgment of the reference court on the various grounds raised in the appeal memo. We have considered his submissions and we have gone through the judgment of the reference court. We are of the view that the learned Sub Judge has arrived at a correct decision LAA.No.1840 & 2317 of 2008 2 regarding the market value of the property at the relevant time. It is true that the documents-Ext.A1 to A3 were not relied on. But what the learned Judge has done is to make a guess work regarding what could have been the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time. Such a guess work has been done on the basis of whatever evidence which was available in the case. The approach of the learned Sub Judge, in our opinion, was not erroneous. We do not find any ground for interfering with the enhancement granted, which we notice is very reasonable. These appeals will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1840 & 2317 of 2008 2