IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 436 of 2008(D)
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KINATTINGAL SHAMSUNNISA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :26/08/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
These are appeals by the Government and under
challenge is the common judgment of the Land Acquisition
Reference Court, Manjeri in as many as ten cases. The
acquisition was of property in Manjeri Village and was for
the purpose of construction of Manjeri Bye-pass. The
relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 9-9-
1997. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the
rate of Rs.4255/- per cent. The reference court tried all the
ten LARs jointly and the evidence consisted of oral evidence
of Aws. 1 to 4 and RW-1, Exts.A1 to A5, Ext.R1 and
Commissioners’ reports X-1 (series). Exts.A1 and A5 were
two documents which were relied on by the claimants in
support of their claim for enhanced land value. The learned
Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance
LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008
-2-
on Ext.A5 on reasons which we also feel are good.
Commissioners’ reports certainly reveal that the properties
under acquisition had locational advantages and that the
properties had the potentialities of having developed as
building sites. What we notice from the judgment is that
after rejecting Exts.A1 and A5 on good reasons the court
below has granted enhancement by Rs.12,000/-. Thus the
land value was enhanced by three times of what was
awarded by the L.A. Officer solely on the basis of the
Commissioners’ reports and on a guess work which was
done by the learned Sub Judge based on the oral evidence
adduced by the parties. It is certainly correct to say that
determination of market value in land acquisition cases will
involve guess work and evaluation of imponderables. But
we are unable to approve the action of the learned
Subordinate Judge in having awarded enhancement by this
LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008
-3-
extent relying solely on guess work. There is another well
settled principle that in order that guess work done by a
Land Acquisition Court is a good guess work, the guess
should have some nexus to the evidence on record. In this
batch of cases, the two tangible items of evidence were A1
and A5, which were rejected by the reference court.
Therefore in our opinion it is not a good guess that has been
done by the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the
market value of the property.
2. Sri. S.A. Saju, learned counsel for the respondents
claimants sought for an opportunity to adduce further
evidence in these cases and requested that the cases be
remanded. Mr.Basant Balaji, learned senior Govt. Pleader
submits that in case this court is being inclined to accept the
above request the interest of the State should be protected
and it should be provided in the judgment that the claimants
LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008
-4-
who are responsible for the order of remand will not gain by
way of statutory interest under section 28. We find force in
the above submission of the learned Govt. Pleader.
3. The result of the above discussion therefore is as
follows:
4. The judgments and decrees under appeals are set
aside. LAR. Nos. 74 & 57 of 2001 are remanded to the
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Manjeri. That Court is directed
to give one opportunity each to the claimants and also to
the Government for adducing evidence. That Court will
complete the further enquiry within three months of parties
entering appearance before the Court below and pass
revised judgment within one month thereafter. It is made
clear that in case under the revised judgment the appellants
become eligible for more than cent per cent of the value
awarded by the L.A. Officer, such excess compensation
LAA. Nos. 216 & 436 of 2008
-5-
exceeding the cent per cent will not carry interest otherwise
admissible under section 28 during the period from 28-2-
2007 till the date of the revised judgments to be passed in
these cases.
Appeals are allowed by way of remand. No costs.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
(K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
ksv/-