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 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 74 of 2008() ------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.27/03 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, THALASSERY) APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT IN LAR ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LA, NH, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR ------------------------------------------------ 1. KUNDIL VEETTIL SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MINI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.KHALID THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.74 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This case pertains to acquisition of land in Muzhappilangad Village for the construction of rail over bridge. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was on 26/3/2001. The land value under the impugned judgment was increased by 75% i.e. 10,000/- to 17,500/- per cent. Value of the structure was increased by 30%. For the value of structure the claim of the respondents was much more. The respondents relied on the commission report in a suit which he had filed. That commission report was not relied on by the reference court. Nevertheless, the court became inclined to grant 30% enhancement on the structure value taking into account the circumstance that it was PWD schedule of rates which had been adopted and the PWD itself tenders its work even above its own rates. As for land value, the court did not place complete reliance on any of the documents. However, market value reflected in the document was also taken into L.A.A..No.74/2008 2 account. So also the items relating to the importance of the locality and its nearness to the Thalassery Town are all taken into account. After all, determination of the market value in the land acquisition case itself involved certain amount of guess work. In the instant case, we find that the guess work made by the learned Subordinate Judge was founded, to some extent, on the evidence which came on record. It is more or less the correct value of the land at the relevant time which had been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. There is no room for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk