IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 73 of 2008() ------------------------ LAR.59/2001 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- KORAMBAYIL MOHAMED HAJI, S/O CHERIYAMMAD, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, LAA NO. 281 OF 2008 LAA NO. 634 OF 2008 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal Nos.73, 178, 281 and 634 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT SURENDRA MOHAN,J. These appeals are filed by the Government challenging the common judgment of the Sub Court, Manjeri granting enhanced compensation in 10 references. The acquisition in all the cases was for the construction of the Manjeri Byepass. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 9.9.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing Rs.4,255/- per cent as compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants sought for a reference to the civil court. Accordingly, the cases came before the Sub Court, Manjeri. 2. The reference court tried all the cases jointly and evidence in the cases are also adduced in common. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of AWs.1 to 4 and RW1, documents Exts.A1 to A5, Ext.R1 and the report of the Commissioner Ext.X1 series. LAA No.73/2008 &conn.cases 2 3. The claimants relied on Ext.A1 and Ext.A5 documents in support of their claim for enhanced land value. However, the subordinate judge did not rely on the said documents. Therefore, the reference court granted enhancement in land value on the basis of the Commission Reports available as well as on guess work. Accordingly, in LAA No.634 of 2008, the land value was enhanced to Rs.9,000/- per cent, while in the other three appeals, the land value was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per cent. These appeals are filed challenging the said common judgment of the reference court. 4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the rival parties. We have also anxiously considered the contentions advanced by both sides. 5. On a perusal of the Commission Reports available in these cases, the locational advantages of the acquired lands are certainly evident, but, we feel that the steep enhancement in land value granted by the reference court, basing solely on the Commissioner’s Reports supplemented by guess work is unjustified. It is certainly trite that determination of market value in any land acquisition case has to necessarily involve a content of guess work. But, award of land value purely on the basis of guess work relying on the oral LAA No.73/2008 &conn.cases 3 evidence of the parties has to be reasonable. We are not able to approve the steep enhancement granted in these cases by the court below. Therefore, it is found that the land value awarded in these cases unsupported by evidence is not justified or sustainable. 6. Sri.S.A.Saju, the counsel for the claimant sought for an opportunity to adduce further evidence in these cases and prayed for a remand of the cases to the reference court. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the event of remand being made, appropriate safeguards to protect the interests of the State be provided in the judgment since it is the claimants who are responsible for the remand. It is also brought to our notice that in two other appeals, LAA Nos.216 and 436 of 2008, connected references have been so remanded to the Sub Court. In the above circumstances, we feel that these cases also can be remanded to the reference court on the same terms. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees under appeal in all these cases are set aside. LAR Nos.59 of 2001, 60 of 2001, 67 of 2001 and 61 of 2002 are remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri. The Court is directed to give an opportunity to each of the claimants and the State for adducing further evidence. The LAA No.73/2008 &conn.cases 4 Court shall complete the further enquiry within three months of the parties entering appearance before the court below and pass revised judgment within one month thereafter. However, in the event of the claimants in these land acquisition references becoming eligible for enhancement in land value in excess of more than cent percent of the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, such excess compensation exceeding cent percent of the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer shall not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the period from 28.2.2007 till the date of the revised judgment to be passed in these cases. The parties shall appear before the Sub Court, Manjeri on 2.11.2009. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ Judgment dated 27.8.2009 in LAA Nos.73,281 and 634/2008 are recalled vide order dated 27.1.2010 in LAA No.73/2008 &conn.cases 5 R.P.Nos.13,9 and 93/2010 respectively. sd/- Registrar (Judicial)