IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 683 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.87/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- PADMANABHA PILLAI BHALAKRISHNA PILLAI, JAYABHAVANAM, CHITTAYAM, PANAYAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 683 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Sri.Bijoy Chandran, learned Government Pleader raised serious arguments on the basis of various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Panayam village for the purpose of railway track pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 4-8-1994. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 6,293/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment has enhanced the same to Rs. 18,000/- per Are. Ext.A1 revealing a land value of Rs. 20,000/- per Are executed in 1983 was relied on mostly by the claimant. The reliance on Ext.A1 was opposed by by the government on two reasons. The first reason was that Ext.A1 property and the acquired property are in two different villages. The learned Subordinate Judge however turned down that objection on the reason that both these villages were originally one village and it is due to bifurcation it became two villages. The second objection was that the consideration of Ext.A1 took in value of a building LAA.No.683/09 2 also . That objection was upheld and therefore the learned Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 for deciding the market value. However, the learned Judge was inspired by the oral evidence of AW1 and the circumstance that there was no counter evidence adduced by the government. Accordingly, what was done was to do guess work and fix the market value at Rs. 18,000/- per Are. It is brought to our notice that this court by judgment in L.A.A.No.234/2008 has approved refixation of market value of land in the same village from Rs. 8581/- to Rs. 17760/- per Are. Even though it would appear that on the basis of the judgment in L.A.A.No.234/2008 perhaps what could have been granted to the claimant in this case is only Rs. 17,500/- per Are, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment since we notice that no counter evidence has been adduced by the government. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.683/09 3