IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1218 of 2009(D) --------------------------- LAR.63/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. N.LEELA, W/O.LATE C.CHATHUKUTTY, MANATHANATH THAZHATH HOUSE, P.O.MAKKADA, (VIA) KAKKODI. 2. THE SECRETARY, CALICUT CORPORATION. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R2 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.1218 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Government is in appeal challenging the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The property under acquisition was in Vengeri Village of Kozhikode Taluk. Purpose of the acquisition was for construction of Road connecting Thadampattuthazham-Kannadickal Road connecting the Florican Hill Road. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 14.8.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.8,625/- per cent. Before the reference court evidence consisted of the oral testimony of AW1, Ext.A1 judgment in another case, oral testimony of RW1, and Ext.B1 & B2 Commissioner's report and Ext.X1 & X2 sketch submitted by the Commissioner. Court below did not become inclined to place reliance on any of the documents including Ext.A1 put in evidence by the claimant/respondent. However what the court below did ultimately was to re-fix the compensation at Rs.30,000/- merely on guess work. Learned Government L.A.A.1218/09 2 Pleader then submitted that the court below was not justified in relying on Ext.X1 commissioner report and Ext.A1 Judgment. We are of the view that the court below having chosen to reject Ext.A1 and X1 giving fair sound reasons was not justified in granting this much of enhancement purely on guess work. At the same time we notice that the property was situated in an important area and was already enjoying frontage of a metalled road. We feel that the market value of the property was Rs.25,000/- per cent. Hence we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.25,000/- per cent. We allow the appeal to the above extent. The appellants/claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which the respondents become eligible by virtue of this judgment. Parties will suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb