IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 286 of 2011 (B) -------------------------------- LAR.383/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN LAR ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR ---------------------------------------- SOMASEKHARAN NADAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NADAR, ASWATHI VILASOM, T.C. 52/1439, THRIKKANNAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.286 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Nemom village for the purpose of improving Thrikkannapuram - Poozhikunnu road. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 19/09/05. The Land Acquisition Officer categorized the land under acquisition into three categories 'A', 'B' and 'C'. This case in fact involves only properties in category 'A'. But as the Reference Court has fixed the rates for category-B also, we propose to deal with the properties in category-B also. 2. Even though the claimant/respondent was served with notice he has not turned up before this Court to resist this appeal. A reading of the impugned judgment will show L. A. A. No.286 of 2011 -2- that the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to rely on the documents produced by the claimant in support of his claim for enhancement. Ultimately it was by doing guess work the learned Sub Judge re-fixed the land value of the properties in category-A at ` 3 lakhs per Are and re-fixed the land value of the properties in category-B at ` 2 lakhs per Are. In land acquisition cases determination of market value of land will involve guess work to a certain extent. But in order that guess made by the court is a good one, it should have some foundation in the evidence available on record. Having considered the evidence, we are of the view that it is not a good guess that has been made by the learned Sub Judge. On our re-appreciation of the evidence, we feel that on a better guess, the market value of the land in category-A can be re-fixed at ` 2 lakhs per are and that the market value of the land in category-B can be re-fixed at ` 1,60,000/- per Are. Accordingly, we re-fix the L. A. A. No.286 of 2011 -3- value of the properties included in category-A at ` 2 lakhs per Are and re-fix the value of the properties included in category-B at ` 1,60,000/- per Are. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. The claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act also. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-