IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 564 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.3/2007 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA (SPL.TAHSILDAR LA KASARAGOD) REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSTP,PWD, OPPOSITE MILITARY HOSPITAL, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS --------------------------------------- 1. E.MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.KUNHAMU, MANAGAD BARE VILLAGE, P.O.BARE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. K.MARIYAKUNHI, W/O.E.MUHAMMED KUNHI, MANAGAD BARE VILLAGE, P.O.BARE, HOSDURG TALUK. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.564 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. We do not find good reason for admitting this appeal which pertains to acquisition of land in Uduma village for the purpose of formation of Kasargod State Highway pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 10-09-2004. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per cent. Before the reference court, the party relied mainly on Ext.A1 judgment of the court which was in respect of acquisition in Kalanad village. Ext.A1 acquisition was 8 years prior to the present acquisition. The court noticed that the acquired property in this case unlike the property in Ext.A1 was situated in the heart of Uduma town and therefore what the court did was to make additions over the value reflected in Ext.A1 for the passage of years and also for the reason that the acquired property is in the heart of Uduma town unlike Ext.A1 property. The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is seen LAA.No.564/09 2 that the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards injurious affection for the remainder property. This we find is done on the basis of the Commissioner's report . Here again, the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge according to us is reasonable. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.564/09 2