IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 268 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.17/1997 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- VALSAMMA THOMAS, PAZHAYAPUACKAL ARUNAPURAM KARA, PULIYANOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.S.SIBHA SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ,KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 268 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her land situated in Puliyanoor Village of Meenachil Taluk was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Ettumanoor - Poonjar State Highway. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13,600/- per Are. The reference court in the first instance enhanced the land value to Rs.93,300/- per cent relying on a particular document. Government preferred appeal. In that appeal this court set aside the award of the reference court and remanded the matter to the reference court. After the remand, the appellant relied on Exts.A1 to A4. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment did not place reliance on any of these documents. Adopting rule of thumb the learned Sub Judge re-fixed land value at Rs.22,230/- per Are. LAA. 268 of 2009 -2- 2. In this appeal the claimant has raised several grounds challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded. Smt. S. Sibha, learned counsel for the appellant addressed very strenuous arguments before us based on the various grounds. All the submissions of Smt.Sibha were resisted by Smt. Josephina, learned Govt. Pleader. 3. Even though Smt.Sibha was very persuasive in her submission that the court below did not rely on atleast one among A1 to A4, we do not think that the learned Sub Judge was faulted for not relying on A1 to A4. A1 to A4 were liable to be eschewed from consideration. What remained was only the oral evidence of AWs. 1 to 8. We notice that there was absolutely no counter oral evidence on the side of the Government. Finally, it is by doing guess work that the learned Judge fixed the value at Rs.22,230/- per Are. We don't think that it is a fully correct guess made by the learned Sub Judge. On a better assessment based on the LAA. 268 of 2009 -3- evidence on record we are of the view that the market value can be re-fixed reasonably at Rs.24,000/- per Are. It is accordingly re-fixed. This means that the appellant will be entitled for enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.1770/- per Are over and above what was awarded by the reference court. The appeal is allowed as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-