1. The claimant in LAR No.6/2002 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kasaragod is the appellant. 0.0074 hectares of land belonging to the appellant was
acquired for the purpose of the second respondent Southern Railway pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
on 14.01.2000. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant requested for a reference. Accordingly, the
matter was referred to the civil court. By the judgment pronounced on 21.03.2005 the trial court enhanced the market value of the property. This was
challenged by the State in LAA No.1413/2007 of this Court. The trial court gave enhancement on the basis of an award passed by the court in
another case, which was marked Ext.A1. Ext.A1 award was set aside by this Court by judgment in LAA Nos.308, 323 & 394 of 2009 dated
14.09.2009. In view of the setting aside of Ext.A1, this Court set aside the award passed by the trial court in this case on 21.03.2005 and remanded
the case. Both parties were given liberty to adduce additional evidence. After the remand, the appellant recalled AW1 and examined him again; but,
no document was marked for him. Exts.R2 & R3 were marked on the part of the respondents subject to objection. The trial court held that the
appellant failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove his claim. Accordingly, it rejected his claim for enhanced compensation. He challenges
it in this appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
3. It was relying on an award in another case, which was marked as Ext.A1, the trial court gave enhancement to the appellant by the judgment
pronounced on 21.03.2005. The State had filed appeal against Ext.A1 award. That appeal was allowed and Ext.A1 award was set aside. For this
reason, in LAA No.1413/2007 this Court set aside the award passed in this case by the trial court on 21.03.2005. It remanded the case to the lower
court giving liberty to both sides to adduce additional evidence. Thereafter, the appellant did not adduce any documentary evidence. It is well settled
that market value of property cannot be proved by oral evidence. The only documentary evidence adduced by the appellant was Ext.A1, which was
set aside. Thus, there is a total lack of evidence to prove the appellant's case. The trial court was fully justified in rejecting his claim.
4. In this appeal the appellant has produced a copy of the common judgment pronounced by the trial court in six Land Acquisition Reference cases in
support of his claim that he is entitled to enhanced compensation. He has filed IA No.252/2017 to receive the document. The common judgment now
produced by the appellant was pronounced about three months after the judgment in this case was pronounced by the trial court. This judgment cannot
be made part of the evidence in the case unless the appellant proves that the property is covered by it and the property acquired from him was similar
and similarly situated. So, this document cannot be marked in the case. IA No.252/2017 cannot be allowed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed. IA No.252/2017 is dismissed.
