IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 246 of 2004(B) ------------------------------- LAR.75/2001 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE PROJECT OFFICER (OECF), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNA AMMA, POOVATHUM CHOLA, VELLAPPALAKANDI, CHERUKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.247 OF 2004 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.246, 247, 248, 249, 250 & 308 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J These appeals pertain to acquisition of two cagegories of lands wet and garden land in Kottur village of Koyilandy Thaluk for the purpose of implementing O.E.C.F project of the Kerala Water Authority. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26/07/1998. For the first category of land the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at ` 542/- per cent based on basis document. For the second category based on the same basis document, he fixed the land value at ` 572/- per cent. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment has, relying mainly on the Advocate Commissioner's report, re-fixed the land value of lands in one category at ` 2,500/- per cent and the other category at ` 2,250/- per cent. In these appeals the Requisitioning Authority challenges the market value re- L. A. A. No.246/04 & con. cases -2- determined by the court as excessive and Smt.Ambikadevi, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant addressed strenuous arguments before us based on grounds. Even though many of the claimants have been served with notice, they have not come forward to resist these appeals. 2. One of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant was that the court below nought to have relied on Advocate Commissioner's report as the Commissioner was not examined. We are not impressed by the above submission. We find that the Commission Report was part of the records of the L.A. cases. It was noticed by both sides that the Commissioner conducted the inspection. It is not correct to say that the Commissioner's recommendation was solely based on his personal assessment. The Commissioner has inspected not only the acquired property but also the property covered by Ext.A1 document, a document relied on very much by the claimants. The Commissioner noticed that under Ext.A1, the market value was ` 3,500/-. According to the Commissioner L. A. A. No.246/04 & con. cases -3- as Ext.A1 properties were superior, a deduction of 30% was eligible to be made. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence by ourselves, we are of the view that the market value fixed by the Reference Court under the impugned judgment is not excessive. We confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss all these appeals, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-