IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 484 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.276/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT --------------------- KRISHNA PILLAI GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, CHEMBIN PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMON, PANAYAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.484 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 2.02 Ares of land in Panayam village in Kollam district pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 7-7-1991. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 6293/- per Are. The reference court would enhance this amount relying on Ext.A1 judgment and also the oral testimony of respondent claimant as AW1. Ext.A1 was a reference case in respect of acquisition for Perumon Refractories pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 6/5/1986. As per Ext.A1, the reference court refixed the land value originally awarded by the land acquisition officer at the rate of Rs. 5276/- per Are at Rs. 18,525/- per Are. Before the reference court AW1, the claimant gave evidence to the effect that the distance between Ext.A1 property and the acquired property was only half kms. and also that the acquired property is having proximity to various public offices. The learned Subordinate Judge even after noticing that Ext.A1 was in respect of LAA.No.484/08 2 acquisition pursuant to a notification five years earlier did not become inclined to grant even the enhancement granted under Ext.A1 on the reason that there was no convincing evidence to show that Ext.A1 property was inferior to the acquired property. Nevertheless to a certain extent relying on Ext.A1 itself and the unrebutted oral evidence of AW1 that the acquired property was having nearness to public offices, the court would refixe the compensation at Rs. 14820/- per Are. I do not know why the learned Subordinate Judge insisted that there must be evidence to hold that the acquired property was superior to Ext.A1 property. After all there was no counter evidence to the evidence of AW1 which was to the effect that the acquired property were near to each other and similar. I feel that the reference court could have granted some addition over value given in Ext.A1 taking into account the passage of 5 years time. Whatever that be, I do not find any reason for interfering the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed inlimine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.484/08 3