IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 252 of 2011(C) ------------------------------ LAR.8/2009 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS IN LAR NO.8/09 ------------------------------------------------- 1. NASEEBA BEEVI, D/O.MOHAMMED KHAIM, THEKKEVILLAVEEDU, EDAVILAKATHU MURI, VEILOOR. 2. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, PLAVILAVEEDU, EDAVILAKATHU MURI, VEILOOR. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.M.J.INDUJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN LAR ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.252 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their property in Pallippuram village with the building was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 06/10/06 for the expansion of the Electronic Technopark at Kazhakkoottam. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-D i.e. properties with frontage of one road only and awarded land value at the rate of ` 47,668/- per cent. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of ` 1,35,716/-. The evidence on the side of the appellants before the Reference Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A7 and the oral evidence of Aws.1 to 3. Evidence on the side of the respondents consisted of Exts.R1 to R2 and the oral L. A. A. No.252 of 2011 -2- evidence of RW1. On evaluating the evidence, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that there was no warrant for enhancing the compensation above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the reference was answered confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court. It is prayed that the land value be re-fixed at ` 63,557/- per cent. Significantly there is no prayer for enhancement in building value. Extensive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the court below was not justified in confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. He highlighted Ext.A4 and submitted that the acquired property was situated very near to the property covered by Ext.A4. The acquired property was superior to the above property and there was L. A. A. No.252 of 2011 -3- justification for re-fixing the value at ` 1,40,000/- per cent. 3. Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the acquired property was situated in a different village. The superiority of the acquired property over Ext.A4 has not been established by any cogent evidence like a Commissioner's Report. She submitted that the appellant's counsel's prayer for enhancement in building value cannot be entertained at all as there is no prayer in the appeal memorandum. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick survey of the evidence to the extent our attention was drawn to by the learned counsel. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in approving the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Determination of market value of land in land acquisition cases to a certain extent will involve guess work. In order that the guess made L. A. A. No.252 of 2011 -4- by the court is a good one what is necessary is it should have some nexus to the evidence on record. 5. Having re-appreciated the evidence ourselves including Ext.A4, we feel that there is justification on the evidence to re-fix the land value at ` 60,000/- per cent. We re-fix the land value at ` 60,000/- per cent. We, however, notice that the property under acquisition in this case was a very large extent. We follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in L. A. O & Sub-collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (AIR 1997 SC 2552); Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority & Anr. (2007(7) SCC 614) and State of J & K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470) and make a cut of 7.5% from the above rate. Thus, the market value of the lands under acquisition in this appeal is re-fixed at ` 55,500/- per cent. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent only. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under L. A. A. No.252 of 2011 -5- Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE kns/-