IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1109 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.30/2004 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), RAILWAY, KASARAGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- KHADEEJABI, W/O. MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT KOMBANAPARA, KALNAD, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R1 SMT.S.AMINA FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO.1109 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose,J The Government is the appellant and they are aggrieved by the re-fixation of the market value of the land under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1000/- per cent, which was enhanced by the reference court at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. The acquisition was for the purpose of doubling railway line. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 18.11.2002. Before the reference Court, evidence consisted of Ext.A1 to A3 and the oral evidence of AW1 on the side of the claimant, apart from Ext.X1 Commission report submitted by the Commissioner after local inspection. On the side of the Government basic document was marked as Ext.R1. In this appeal the Government challenges the award of the Reference Court on the reason that the same is based only on the report of Advocate Commissioner, who made recommendation relying on the information gathered by him from the local people. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the claimant. We have 2 gone through the impugned judgment. We have made a re-appraisal of the evidence. Even though Exts.A1 to A3 were produced by the claimant, under the impugned judgment, instead of relying on those documents the reference Court determined the market value of the lands under acquisition based only on the recommendation of advocate commissioner. Unless those recommendations are based on value revealed by some documents of sale the same cannot be accepted. In the instant case we cannot approve the action of the learned Sub Judge who granted enhancement relying solely on the recommendation made by the advocate commissioner. On a re-valuation of the evidence and on a better assessment based on the evidence available on record we feel that the market value of the land under acquisition can be re-fixed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent. Accordingly setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal we re-fix the value of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per cent. Appeal stands allowed, but without any order as to costs. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits on the total compensation to which they are eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE ,JUDGE. K. SURENDRAMOHAN, JUDGE. pm