IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 373 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.23/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. SUNDARESAN, CHENTHOONTETHARAYIL VEEDU, PALLANA P.O., THOTTAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN DR.V.N.SANKARJEE FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 373 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the requisitioning authority and the acquisition was pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 30-9-1999. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5122/- per Are, which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.12,350/- per Are. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.V.Santharam, learned counsel for the appellant and those of the learned counsel for the claimant respondent and the learned Govt. pleader. We have gone through the impugned judgment. It was Ext.A1 sale deed which was relied on mostly by the claimants in support of their claim. The learned Subordinate Judge has given good reasons for declining to rely on Ext.A1. It was noticed that unlike the acquired property, A1 property was having direct road frontage. Ultimately, it is LAA.N0. 373/04 -2- accepting the oral evidence of AW-1 and on guess work, that the learned Subordinate Judge concluded that the correct market value of the acquired property is the rate fixed by him, which is Rs.141/- per cent above the rate under the land acquisition officer's award. In land acquisition cases, determination of market value can involve a little bit of guess work and also evaluation of imponderables. But in order that the guess made by the reference court is a good guess, the same should be based on some evidence available on record. The only available evidence was the oral evidence of AW-1. We are of the view that on a better guess, the market value of the acquired property in this case at the relevant time is Rs.10,756/- per Are. 3. The appeal stands allowed. The market value of the acquired property is accordingly re-fixed at Rs.10,756/- per Are. The appeal stands allowed to that extent. In the LAA.N0. 373/04 -3- circumstances the parties are directed to suffer their costs. It is needless to mention that if the claimant has already withdrawn more than what is admissible to him by virtue of this judgment, the appellant requisitioning authority will be entitled to refund of the same. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ksv/-