IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 2310 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.45/2002 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AYSHA THAMEEN TC 21/13,KILLIPPALAM PURAYIDAM,KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. No. 2310 of 2008 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Eventhough copy of this appeal memorandum was sent showing posting date to the Advocate, who was appearing for the claimant/respondent before the trial court, there is no response from the side of the claimant. 2. The appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Manacaud village for the purpose of construction of Killippalam – Ayranimuttom Bund. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 28-12-1998. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,60,299/- per Are. Before the reference court, the claimant relied on Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 document was six months earlier to Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A2 was a post notification document which was rightly rejected by the court below. The court below did not place reliance on Ext.A1 either. Ultimately, what the court below did was to do LAA.2310/08 : 2 : guess work and re-fix the land value at Rs.2,30,000/- per Are. 3. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader, brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in LAA No.2173/2008, which pertains to acquisition for the same purpose but of land in a different category. It is noticed that, under that judgment, the court below, adopting the same method, has granted enhancement only 33%. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no justification for granting more than 33% enhancement in this case. 4. We have considered the submissions. We find the property under acquisition in this case was of a superior category and that the court below was justified in re-fixing land value by guess work based on the oral evidence adduced by the claimant. At the same time, we feel that the re-fixation is slightly excessive. On a better assessment based on the same evidence, the value of land can be re-fixed at Rs.2,20,000/- per Are. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and re-fix the value of land under acquisition at Rs.2,20,000/- per Are in modification of the impugned judgment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant LAA.2310/08 : 3 : will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks