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. 375 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.16/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT --------------------- 1. RAVINDRAN NAIR, CHAMPAKASSERIL, THAKAZHY, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, ALONG WITH LAA 386/04, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.375 & 386 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 7th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. These are appeals directed against the common judgment and decree in LAR Nos.16/01 and 12/01 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The acquisition is for the purpose of widening of National Water Ways. The property involved is, 11.70 Ares in LAR 16/01 and 13 Ares in LAR 12/01. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.12,109/- per Are and a nominal enhancement to the tune of Rs.3,027/- was granted by the reference court, refixing the land value at Rs.15,136/- per Are. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the fixation is made without any basis. Though guess work to some extent is permissible, fixation by guess work alone cannot be justified, it is submitted. We are afraid, the contentions cannot be appreciated. For one thing it is to be seen that there was no evidence at all for the appellant or the Land Acquisition Officer before the reference court. The claimant has produced Ext.A1, and they have also tendered evidence as AWs.1 and 2. By referring to the schedule of the property, the reference LAA NO. 375 & 386/04 2 court has entered a finding that the property covered by Ext.A1 is lying abutting the Panchayat road, and therefore, Ext.A1 cannot be relied on. But the court found that the acquired property is situated in an important locality, and in view of the locational advantages to the property, enhancement at the rate of 25% is just, fair and reasonable. In the absence of any contra evidence, and in view of the finding regarding locational importance of the property, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.4036/04 in LAA 375/04 : Dismissed. I.A.No.3986/04 in LAA 386/04 : Dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.375 & 386 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 7th February, 2008.