IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1023 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.5/2003 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT --------------------- A.M.GOPALAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKULAM AND FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V.CHANDRAN, PUTHIYA VALAPPU, P.O.KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SMT.C.SEENA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1023 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Government against the award of the reference court in respect of acquisition of 0.0037 hectars of land in Kanhangad village pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 05/04/2002, wrongly stated in the judgment of the reference court as 09-08-1999. The purpose of the acquisition was construction of a railway over bridge on the national highway. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5005/- per cent which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs. 15,000/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court consisted on the side of the appellant Government of Ext.R1 copy of the basis document. On the side of the respondent claimant it consisted only of oral testimony of the power of attorney holder of the respondent. It appears to me that the learned Subordinate Judge was impressed by the oral evidence which was given by AW1 which was to the effect that the acquired property is situated near to places of commercial importance. On a reading of the LAA.No.1023/07 2 judgment of the reference court it is seen that it is relying on the testimony of AW1 and the “other surrounding circumstances” that the land value has been re-fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per cent. No reasons are seen stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Ext.R1. It is true that evaluation of market value in land acquisition case will involve a certain extent of guess work. However guess work as to market value of the acquired property should have some basis on the market value as reflected by documents or other items of documentary evidence revealing market value of the property in the area at the relevant time. In the instant case, it is seen that it is relying only on the oral evidence and by doing guess work that the learned Subordinate Judge has increased the land value awarded by the land acquisition officer by three times. I do not think that it is a good guess which was made by the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the market value since the same is not founded on any documentary evidence. 2. Smt.Sudha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are judgments of the court pertaining to the very same acquisition under which similar enhancement or even more LAA.No.1023/07 3 enhancement had been granted by the court below and that it will always be possible for the respondents to produce such judgments. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to allow the appeal by way of remand. Accordingly, the judgment of the reference court is set aside and L.A.R.No. 5/03 is sent back to the reference court. That court will afford opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence and will pass a revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence adduced by the parties. Revised judgment as directed above shall be passed by the learned Subordinate Judge within four months of the parties entering appearance before that court pursuant to this order of remand. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1023/07 4