State Of Kerala vs S. Mohanan Nair on 6 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1762 of 2008()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S. MOHANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :06/10/2008

 O R D E R
                      PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                     ------------------------------
                    L.A.A.NO.1762 OF 2008-A
                     ------------------------------
           Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008.

                             JUDGMENT

I am not inclined to admit this appeal which pertains to

acquisition of land in Kazhakkkoottom – Menamkulam village in

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk for the purpose of Electronics Techno

Park pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 5.4.1994.

The Land Acquisition Officer, relying on a basis document, fixed the

land value at the rate of Rs.11,812/= per Are. Before the

reference court, the claimant was examined as AW1. He did not

produce any documentary evidence. The respondents have not

adduced any counter evidence. The only document produced was

the award which contained copies of the basis document and the

mahazar. In the opinion of the court below, the acquired property

was superior to the basis property and there was sufficient reason

for granting enhancement. But the learned judge noticed that the

available evidence on the side of the respondents was only oral

evidence and since proceeded to make a guess work as to what

could have been the market value payable by a willing purchaser

LAA.1762/08 .

2

if the property is sold by a willing seller. Ultimately, the learned

judge by making guess work granted increase by 30% on the land

value given by the L.A. Officer. The question is whether it is a good

guess, that has been made by the court. In order that guess work

is good, it should have some nexus to evidence on record. In the

instant case there was oral evidence of AW1 to which there was

no counter evidence. I think that the guess made by the

learned judge was a reasonable and good one. I do not find any

ground warranting interference with the same.

The appeal will stand dismissed in limine.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

   cl

LAA.1762/08         .
               3