IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 25 of 2009() ------------------------ LAR.4/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VARGHESE, S/O.POTHEN, PULICKAL VEETTIL CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY KARA KOTTAYAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.25 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Sri.P.K.Babu, learned Government Pleader has addressed us very strenuously, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. This appeal pertains to acquisition of 10.20 Ares of land described in the reference as wet land for the purpose of construction of Changanassery bye-pass. The relevant section 4 (1) notification was on 20/1/2005. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6,452/- per Are. The reference court enhanced the same to Rs. 10,968/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of the oral testimonies of AW1 and AW2 on the side of the claimant while the same consisted of Ext.R1 basis document and R2 a copy of topo sketch on the side of the appellant State. Significantly, there was no counter oral evidence adduced by the Government to the evidence of AW1 and AW2. It became evident that the property in question was situated very near to the Changanassery railway station and to the various institutions and establishments in the Changanassery Municipal town such as as KSRTC Bus stand, private bus stand, colleges and Government Offices. The learned LAA.No.25/2009 2 Subordinate Judge found that the basis property was wet land under paddy cultivation and was part of a padasekharam. The learned Judge noticed that there was no counter evidence adduced by the Government to the version of AW1 and AW2 that the acquired property had been reclaimed. Though the claimant did not produce any document revealing higher land value, what the court below did was to make a guess work on the basis of the available evidence which, as already indicated, consisted of testimonies of AW1 and AW2. Determination of market value in the land acquisition cases, to a certain extent, may involve guess work. When the reference court proceeds to determine market value on the basis of guess work, the question to be considered by this court is whether the guess made by the reference court is a good guess. We notice in this case, that the guess made by the learned subordinate judge is based on oral testimonies of AW1 and AW2 and according to us is a good guess. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk