IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 759 of 2004(D) -------------------------- LAR.114/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- INLAND WATERRWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI 682 018. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENTS: CLIMANT AND A-RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- 1. BHASURA D/O.CHELLAMMA, PUTHENPURAYIL THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.759 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 7th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. This is an appeal filed by the requisitioning authority, viz., Inland Waterways Authority of India, aggrieved by the judgment and decree in LAR 114/02 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The acquisition is for the purpose of widening of National Water Way No.III. Section 4(1) notification was published on 24.8.1999. The property is situated in Purakkad village. The extent involved is only 2.90 Ares. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.6,829/- per Are, which was refixed by the reference court at Rs.12,292/- per Are. It is seen from the judgment itself that the requisitioning authority or the acquisitioning authority had not even produced the basic document and satisfied the court that fair compensation had been granted. On the other hand, the claimant attempted to establish the claim for enhancement on the basis of Ext.A1 document. It is true that Ext.A1 is executed only on 31.8.2000, after one year of Section 4(1) notification. The land value as shown in the document is Rs.60,606/- per Are. But the reference LAA NO. 759/04 2 court was not inclined to rely on the document on the ground that it is a post notification document and that there was no evidence to prove that the increase in the land value was as a consequence of the acquisition. However, the reference court has made some guess work and granted enhancement to the tune of 80%. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of any evidence to establish the claim for enhancement, the reference court should not have interfered with the value already fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Though guess work to some extent is permissible, fixation of land value based only on guess work cannot be justified, it is submitted. As we have already noted, the requisitioning authority or the acquisitioning authority have not taken any steps before the reference court to establish that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. The basic document was not produced before the reference court. It was found that fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. It is seen from the judgment that Ext.A1 was rejected on the only ground that there was no evidence regarding the enhancement in land value consequent on the acquisition. LAA NO. 759/04 3 We are afraid, there is no basis for the stand taken by the reference court. Even if the enhancement in land value in the area is not consequent on the acquisition also, in case there is evidence to the effect that there is enhancement in land value over the years after the acquisition, even though not as a consequence to the acquisition, the reference court should consider that evidence. We do not think that it is necessary to send back this matter to the reference court since we find that going by the value as shown in Ext.A1 document, the enhancement given is only very nominal. The extent involved is very small. The enhancement as such comes only to 80% whereas if the value in Ext.A1 is taken, the enhancement is much more. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.3698/04 : Dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. LAA NO. 759/04 4 tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO.759 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 7th February, 2008.