IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1540 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.35/2000 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- 1. K.A.BALACHANDRAN, XI/743, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.THRISSUR. MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON (R1) SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1540 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The Thrissur Municipal Corporation, the requisitioning authority, is in appeal. The acquisition was of property situated in Thrissur Village i.e. very near to Chettiyangadi junction which is very close to several establishments in Thrissur such as KSRTC, railway station, etc. Section 4(1) notification was published on 11/10/1988. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.48,000/- per Are. The Reference Court, under the impugned judgment did not rely on any of the documents produced by the claimant. In stead, that court relied on Ext.R1 the basis document itself. But, it was noticed that there was no evidence adduced by either party to bring forth the comparability between Ext.R1 property and the property under acquisition. Taking into account the proximity of the acquired property to the important institutions and establishments in Thrissur, the court below enhanced the land value at 25% and L.A.A.No.1540/2008 2 refixed the same at Rs.60,000/- per Are. 2. Several apparent grounds are raised in this appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments based on all those grounds. It was submitted that the court below under the impugned judgment, after referring to the judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. Kuruvila (2005 (3) KLT 580) which lays down that for passage of time the enhancement to be granted is 10% per year, has actually awarded 25% more. This is not justified. 3. We have considered all the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that the court below has referred to the judgment of this court in in State of Kerala v. Kuruvila(cited supra). But, a careful reading of the impugned judgment will show that it is not relying on that judgment, that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted enhancement. The learned Subordinate Judge granted enhancement taking into account the importance of the locality where the property is situated, its nearness to the important institutions and establishments in Thrissur and its potentiality as a commercial property. Determination of market value in land acquisition L.A.A.No.1540/2008 3 cases will involve a certain amount of guess work. On going through the judgment, we are convinced that it is more or less the correct guess that the learned Subordinate Judge has made. At any rate, the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the rate presently fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk