IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1088 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.19/1989 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SARASWATHI AMMA, VELLASSERY PUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJATTUM MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & THE REQUISITION AUTHORITY ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, KOLLAM 691013. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1143 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their lands in Kunnathoor Village were acquired by the Government at the instance of the E.S.I. Corporation for the purpose of construction of E.S.I. Dispensary and Staff Quarters at Kadampanadu. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 20-3-1984. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4464/- per Are. The Reference Court in the first instance on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the market value can be re-fixed at Rs.6175/- per Are. That award was challenged by the requisitioning authority ESI Corporation. The challenge was upheld on the ground that the ESI Corporation had not been made a party to the proceedings before the Reference Court. This Court set aside the award LAA Nos. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 -2- and remitted the matter to the Reference Court directing impleadment of the ESI Corporation. The impugned common judgment has been passed pursuant to the above remand. The documents before the Reference Court in support of the appellant's claim for enhancement were mainly Ext.A1 which was judgment of the same Court in respect of acquisition of land in Sasthamcotta Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 29-4- 1986 (about 1½ years subsequent to the notification in the present case). Under that judgment a land value of Rs.9000/- per cent was fixed. Ext.A2 was the appellate judgment pertaining to Ext.A1. Ext.A3 was yet another judgment pertaining to acquisition of land in Sasthamcotta Village itself. The notification relating to Ext.A3 was published on 6-2-1990, several years subsequent to the present Section a4(1) notification. Ext.A3 also reflects a land value of Rs.9000/- per cent. The learned Subordinate LAA Nos. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 -3- Judge under the impugned judgment found that the property covered by the basis document was not comparable. At the same time, on various reasons the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on Ext.A1. Ultimately, what was done was to appraise the oral evidence, do guess work and conclude that the correct market value of the properties is Rs.5570/- per Are. 2. In these appeals preferred by the appellants who are direct sisters they have raised various grounds assailing the award of the Reference Court. In these appeals they claim land value at the rate of Rs.12500/- per cent. Sri.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants addressed us extensively on the basis of the grounds raised in the appeal. When the learned counsel was asked as to whether the appellants had preferred any appeal against the initial judgment of the Reference Court fixing market value at LAA Nos. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 -4- Rs.6175/- per Are, the learned counsel answered in the negative. He explained that one Advocate Mr. Raghavan Nair, a direct brother of the appellants had been entrusted with the filing of an appeal against that judgment, but he did not prefer the appeal. It has to be presumed therefore that appellants at that time were not aggrieved by the fixation of market value at Rs.6175/- per Are. 3. We have re-appraised the evidence. The only evidence available in the case is Exts. A1 to A3, apart from the basis document. A1 to A3 are all post notification documents. We also notice that they pertain to properties in other villages. Under the above circumstance we are not in a position to blame the learned Subordinate Judge for having discarded Exts.A1 to A3. It is by doing guess work that the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.5570/- per Are. To a certain extent determination of market value in land LAA Nos. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 -5- acquisition cases can involve guess work. We find that the guess made by the learned Sub Judge in the original case is to a certain extent based on the oral evidence available in the case. It cannot be said that it is a totally bad guess that was made by the learned Subordinate Judge. At the same time, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly while fixing the market value. According to us, the market value could have been fixed atleast at Rs.6175/- per Are. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr.Suresh Kumar as to the circumstances under which appeal was not preferred by the appellants against the initial judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. We are of the view that at any rate the appellants cannot aspire for more than Rs.6175/- per Are fixed originally. 4. Hence we allow these appeals re-fixing the market value of land under acquisition at Rs.6175/- per Are. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits LAA Nos. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 -6- admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this re-fixation. The appellants will be entitled for proportionate costs also. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA Nos. 1088 & 1143 of 2007 -7-