IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 51 of 2010() ------------------------ (LAR NO.51 OF 1998 OF SUB COURT KOLLAM) APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANANT: -------------- KUNJU PILLAI AMMA SAROJINI AMMA, PARAYANTHOTTIL VEEDU MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM – 13. ADV. SMT LATHA T THANKAPPAN, SR GOVT PLEADER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 51 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is the appellant. His property in Sakthikulangara Village situated within the limits of the Kollam Municipal Corporation was acquired for the formation of NH-47 Kollam Bye pass. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 30/11/1995. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.60,882/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, he produced documents Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A5 was a report submitted by the commissioner at his instance in a suit which the appellant had instituted earlier. Oral evidence on the claimant's side consisted of his own oral evidence as AW1. On the side of the Government there was absolutely no counter evidence. The court below would find that the sale documents produced by the claimants were not sufficient to justify the enhancement in land value. However, relying on Ext.A5 report, the court below noticed that the property was situated in an very important area and was enjoying various commercial LAA.No.51/2010 2 potentialities. In that view of the matter, the court below would do guess work and refix the land value at Rs.1,00,455/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court and Sri.C.Rajendran, learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. All the arguments of Mr.Rajendran were refuted by Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned senior Government Pleader. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival arguments and having scanned the impugned judgment, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly while fixing the market value. On a better guess based on the available materials, the market value can, according to us, be refixed at Rs.1,,02,500/- per Are. Accordingly, we refix the market value of the property under acquisition at Rs.1,02,500/- per Are. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to LAA.No.51/2010 3 suffer their respective costs. While drafting the decree, the Registry will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this court in its order dated 3/2/2010 in C.M.Appln. No.81/2010 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk