IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 1042 of 2000(A) --------------------------- LAR.141/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT ------------- LILLY CHACKO POOTHOKKARAN HOUSE CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008 ALONG WITH LAA NO. 12 OF 2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.4738 OF 2000 IN L.A.A.NO.1042 OF 2000 DISMISSED 28-8-08 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NOs.1042 OF 2000 & 12 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the Government against the common judgment in L.A.R.Nos. 140/88 and 141/88 on the files of Thrissur Sub court. These cases pertain to acquisition of land in Thrissur village pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 27/04/1986 for the purpose of construction of Bell Mouth Shopping complex and widening of road at Ramanilayam Junction at Block No.1. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per Are and the reference court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 25,000/- per Are. The reference court enhanced the value of structures and other improvements awarded to the claimsants in L.A.R.No.140/86 by a total amount of Rs. 12881/- while similar enhancement of Rs. 7910.51 was given to the claimant in L.A.R.No.141/88. 2. The evidence before the reference court consisted of L.A.A.NOs.1042 OF 2000 & 12 OF 2001 2 Exts.A1 and A2 which are copies of the commissioner's report prepared by Advocate Commissioner on the basis of his inspection and valuation of the structures. In fact Exts.A1 and A2 were proved also by examining the Commissioner as AW1. AW1, Exts.A1 and A2 constituted the only evidence on the side of the respondent claimants. The counter evidence on the side of the respondents consisted of the oral testimony of RW1 and RW2 and Exts.R2 and R3, the estimates prepared by the concerned engineer of the department regarding the structures which are situated on the acquired property apart from Ext.R1 which is a certified copy of the basis document. The basis document revealed a land value of Rs. 4500/- per Are only. The basis document-Ext.R1 was attempted to be proved by the oral evidence of RW1. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that basis document has not been sufficiently proved by examining somebody connected with the execution of that document. The learned Subordinate Judge also noticed that it was apparent that the acquired property was superior to the property covered by the basis document L.A.A.NOs.1042 OF 2000 & 12 OF 2001 3 since the property covered by the basis document did not have the direct frontage of main road while the acquired property was having direct frontage of Cherur Road and close proximity to the four road junction. The learned Judge also noticed that the basis document was executed some two years prior to the relevant section 4(1) notification. According to me the learned Judge's view that the acquired property was superior to the property covered by the basis document is fairly a correct one. I also agree that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in holding that the claimants were entitled for enhanced land value. But the question to be considered is as to what is the evidence on the basis of which the present refixation at Rs. 24,710/- per Are could be made by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is not on the basis of any tangible legal evidence that the refixation has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge. On the contrary, what the learned Judge did was to keep in mind the fact emerging from the Mahazer that the acquired property was situated in an important locality of the town and that the property was having direct access to the public road and then refix the land value at Rs. 10,000/- per cent. It is obvious that it is on guess L.A.A.NOs.1042 OF 2000 & 12 OF 2001 4 work that the learned Subordinate Judge made such refixation. Of course, in land acquisition cases to a certain extent, determination of market value of acquired land will involve guess work. The question is whether the guess made in this case by the learned Subordinate Judge was a good and acceptable one. 4. Having re-appreciated the evidence available in these cases and having noticed the circumstance that absolutely no counter evidence had been adduced by the respondents-claimants despite opportunities given to them by this court and the Supreme Court, I feel that it was not a good guess that the learned Subordinate Judge did for arriving at the conclusion that the correct market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs. 10,000/- per cent. I feel that on a better assessment, the market value will have to be refixed at Rs. 9,000/- per cent. It is ordered accordingly. At the same time, I am not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the Thrissur Corporation and the learned Government Pleader that the reliance placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on Exts.A1 and A2 was proper. I find that Exts.A1 and A2 the commissioner's reports based on L.A.A.NOs.1042 OF 2000 & 12 OF 2001 5 inspection conducted with notice have been properly proved by examining AW1 and the enhancement granted in respect of the value of structures does not warrant any interference. The result is that the appeals will stand allowed to the following limited extent. The land value of the acquired land is refixed at Rs. 9,000/- per cent ( Rs.22239/- per Are). Award of enhanced for improvements by the Subordinate Judge will stand confirmed. the respondents-claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits. But parties will suffer their costs throughout. Decrees will be drawn up accordingly in both the cases. The appeals will stand allowed to the above extent. The appellants are directed to ensure that the balance amount due under the decree as modified is deposited within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. L.A.A.NOs.1042 OF 2000 & 12 OF 2001 6