IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1731 of 2007(C) -------------------------------- LAR.118/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL. CLAIMANTS 4 TO 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DAMODARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KAVANAL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BHAVANI AMMA, D/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KAVANAL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE RAMAN NAIR, KAVANAL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. K.D.VIJAYAN, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR & YESODAMMA, KAVANAL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. K.D.UMADEVI, D/O. DAMODARAN NAIR & YESODAMMA, KAVANAL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. K.D.AJESHKUMAR, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR & YESODAMMA, KAVANAL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.A.S.THOMAS SMITH LA.App..No. 1731 of 2007(C) -2- RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., VYTTILA, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.NITHIN GEORGE FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1731 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. They are aggrieved by what is described as the inadequacy of compensation re-determined by the Reference Court. The property is in Puthencruz village. The acquisition of land was for the purpose of Kochi Refineries Ltd. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 04/11/2000. The properties were included in category- IV and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,000/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence adduced by the claimants consisted mainly of Exts.A1, A2, A3 and A4 L. A. A. No.1731 of 2007 -2- apart from oral evidence. The court below did not become inclined to place reliance on any of the documents. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment we also feel that the court below was justified in not placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2, the two sale documents relied on by the claimants since the property covered by those documents were not comparable to the property under acquisition. Under Ext.A3 award which was pursuant to a notification two years subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per Are. Ext.A4 is the court judgment corresponding to Ext.A3. But Ext.A3 does not involve any land which is comparable to the acquired property. It appears to us that the learned Sub Judge kept in kind Exts.A3 and L. A. A. No.1731 of 2007 -3- A4, did some guess work and fixed the value of the properties under acquisition at Rs.32,400/- which incidentally is just 11.5% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Smt.K.S.Sudha, the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.Thushara James, the counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and also the Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Basant Balaji addressed us elaborately. We have scanned the impugned judgment. We have made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence on record. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly in the matter of fixing the market value of the properties under acquisition. Even though, the ratio fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer between the values of properties in category-I and category-IV cannot be said to be L. A. A. No.1731 of 2007 -4- correct, it was not certainly in the ratio of Rs.66,600/- : Rs.32,400/-. Determination of market value in a land acquisition reference case will involve a little bit of guess work and evaluation of imponderables. In order that re-determination made on guess work becomes proper, what is necessary is that the guess work is founded at least to the certain extent on the evidence available on record. Keeping this principle in mind, we are of the view that on a better guess based on the evidence available on record, the market value of the properties under acquisition can be re-fixed at Rs.33,500/- per Are. In doing so, we take into account the fact that the property under acquisition in this case is fairly extensive and the transaction of acquisition is comparable to wholesale transaction. L. A. A. No.1731 of 2007 -5- 4. The appeal will stand allowed re-fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.33,500/- per Are. It is needless to mention that the appellants/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible in law on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-