IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1138 of 2002(D) --------------------------- LAR.174/1993 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, THENGUMKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, PANAMURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. 2. PADMANABHAN ARAVINDAKSHAN, DO. DO. 3. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD., CHAVARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ADDL.R4. V.MAHESWARI, MAHIMA, KAKKAKKUNNU P.O. KUMARANCHIRA, PATHARAM. R5.M.ARYADEVI, MAHIMA, KAKKAKKUNNU P.O., KUMARANCHIRA, PATHARAM. R6.M.JAYANTHI, SNEHAMANDIRAM, KADINAMKULAM P.O. THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. R7.M.HEMAMBIKA, VRINDA NIVAS, PAVITHRESWARA P.O. PUTHUR. (ADDL.R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.2740/2004 DATED 16/8/2005) ADDL.R8. GOMATHI, W/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, THENGUMKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, PANAMURI, PANNANA P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM. R9.SASIDHARAN, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, SINIL BHAVAN, VADAKKUMTHALA P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM. R10. SOBHA, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, LALI MANDIRAM PEROOR P.O. KARIKKODU, KOLLAM. R11. CHANDRA BABU, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, PANMANA P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R12. SUSHAMA CHANDRAN, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, CHANDRA VILASOM, PUNNATHALA P.O. THANKASSERY, KOLLAM. R13. SUGATHAN, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, BIJU BHAVAN, KILLOKKADA, CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM. R14. REVAMANI, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, THENGUMKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, PANAMURI, PANMANA P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOOLAM. R15. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, THENGUMKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, PANAMURI, PANMANA P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM. R16. ANITHA, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, KANNITTAYIL,, ARINALLOOR P.O. KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM R17. GEETHA KUMARI (ASWATHI) D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN DIVAKARAN, CHEPPINAL KIZHAKKATHIL, AYITHOTTUVA P.O. WEST KALLADA, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM. (ADDL. R8 TO R18 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.3930/2006 DATED19/1/2009) ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R4 TO R7 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1138 OF 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal filed by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Panmana Village for the purpose of Indian Rate Earth Ltd. Chavara. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 4/10/1988. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4,940/- per Are corresponding to Rs.2,000/- per cent relying on the basis document. The claimants relied on Ext.A1 document which was post notification document executed some two years subsequent to the relevant section 4(1) notification. Though Ext.A1 was properly proved, the court below did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1. But, the court below noticed that the evidence of AW1 and AW2 that the acquired property was much more superior to the basis property had not effectively challenged in cross examination. The court below accepted the testimony of AW1 L.A.A.No.1138/2002 2 and AW2 that the acquired property, unlike the basis property, had proximity to important institutions and establishments. What, therefore, the court below did was to rely on the basis document itself and to give increase by Rs.1,000/- per cent and to determine market value of the acquired property at the time of acquisition i.e. Rs.3,000/- per cent. 2. We have gone through the judgment of the reference court and we have considered all the above submissions, which were addressed before us by Sri.P.K.Babu, learned Government Pleader, who assailed the impugned judgment very strongly. We are of the view that it is a reasonable approach, which has been made by the learned Subordinate Judge. Even the notes to award contained statement to the effect that the acquired property had locational advantages when compared to the basis property. There was no challenge to the testimony given by AW1 and AW2 regarding the superiority of the acquired property to the property covered by the basis document. To crown all, there was no counter evidence at all from the side of the Government. Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to L.A.A.No.1138/2002 3 interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk L.A.A.No.1138/2002 4 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1138 OF 2002 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 19th January 2009