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. 429 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.111/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, R.S.BHAVANAM, PANAYAM VILLAGE, PERUMEN CHERIYIL. 2. SULOCHANA AMMA, R.S.BHAVANAM, PANAYAM VILLAGE, PERUMEN CHERIYIL. 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. 429 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Panayam village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 26-10-1995 for the purpose of Railways. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 8574/- per Are. Before the reference court, the claimant produced Ext.A1 sale document which revealed a land value of around Rs. 30,000/- per Are. Apart from Ext.A1, the claimant relied on Ext.A2 Commissioner's report which revealed that the property was lying in an important area. The claimant claimed enhancement towards the value of structures which was not granted by the reference court. The learned Subordinate Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 either, though he rightly concluded that the basis document which had not even been proved by the government was not a dependable one, what the learned Judge ultimately did was to have a guess work and conclude that the correct market value of the property LAA.No.429/2009 2 at the relevant time was 70% over what was granted by the land acquisition officer. In the circumstances of this case where absolutely no counter evidence adduced by the appellant to the evidence adduced by the claimant, we are of the view that the Subordinate Judge has made a good guess regarding the correct market value of the property relying on Ext.A1 which certainly gives an idea regarding the value of land in a nearby village. The Commissioner had reported regarding the importance of the acquired property. For both these reasons, we are of the view that the refixation of land value by the learned Subordinate Judge is more or less correct. There is no room for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.429/2009 2