IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 2046 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.127/2003 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT ----------------------- AENATHY, S/O.MYTHEEN, MANGALATHU, ADIVADU. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.4557 OF 2008 IN LAA NO.2046 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 12.11.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.2046 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12th November, 2008 JUDGMENT I am not inclined to admit this appeal which pertains to acquisition of land in Pothanicadu village for the purposes of the MVIP pursuant to a notification dated 28.2.1997. As against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.12,963/- per are, the court below would refix the land value at the rate of Rs.16,763/- per are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 common judgment in LAR No.330/99 series of that court and the oral testimony of A.W.1 on the side of the claimant. On the side of the respondent-appellant the same consisted of Exts.R1 to R4, copies of mahazars pertaining to acquisition. Ext.A1 was in respect of acquisition in same village pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1), two years prior to the current notification under Section 4(1). The learned Subordinate Judge did not become incline to place reliance on Ext.A1 on the reason that the notification under Section 4 (1) was much earlier and also on the reason that it was a different land value which had been granted to the parties in Ext.A1 by the Land Acquisition Officer. Discarding Ext.A1, what the learned Judge did was to grant enhancement at the rates presently granted making LAA No.2046/08 - 2 - a guess on the basis of the oral testimony of A.W.1 and lie and location of the property as could be discerned from Exts.R1 and R4. Determination of land value in land acquisition cases to a considerable extent will involve guess work. In this case in as much as the guess made by the learned Subordinate Judge was based on the testimony of A.W.1 and Exts.R1 and R4, I am of the view that the above guess is a good one. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE