IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1015 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.281/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.1 -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS & ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.2 --------------------------------------------- 1. ANITHA, ANITHA BHAVAN, THEKKUM BHAGAM MURI, KAZHAKKUTTOM. 2. ELECTRIBUES TECHNOLOGY PARK (KERALA), KARIAVATTOM, POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2579 OF 2007 IN L.A.A.NO.1015 OF 2007 DISMISSED. 23.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 1015 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd June, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though the learned Government Pleader has addressed me very strenuously in respect of all the grounds raised in the Memorandum, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of 12.25 ares of land for the purposes of the Electronics Techno Part. The notification under Section 4(1) was on 5.4.1994 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,644/- per are. Before the reference court the main plea of the respondent-claimant was that the land acquisition authority was not correct in classifying the acquired property as belonging to category No.3 wet land. The plea was that the property should have been treated as dry lands included in category No.2. In order to substantiate this plea, a commission was also issued by the court and the Commissioner filed a report which to some extent supported the claimant's claim. However, the learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on the Commissioner's report. Reliance was placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the observations in the mahazar prepared by the land acquisition authority wherein it was stated that part of the acquired property was recently converted as dry land after LAA No.1015/07 - 2 - the issuance of the initial notification under Section 4(1). To support the claim for enhanced land value it was Ext.A2 document which was relied on by the respondent. In fact the Commissioner during his inspection had inspected the property covered by Ext.A2 as well as the property covered by the basic document relied on by the land acquisition officer. The Commissioner had reported on comparative evaluation that Ext.A2 property is similar to the acquired property. The learned Subordinate Judge however did not rely on the Commissioner's report in this aspect also. The learned Judge highlighted that in the affidavit which was filed by A.W.1 in lieu of chief examination there is just one sentence that Ext.A2 property is similar to acquired property and therefore the claimant is entitled to the same land value. According to the learned Judge, the evidence of the claimant cannot be completely relied on for proving the comparability of Ext.A2 property with the acquired property. What the learned Judge has done under the judgment is to rely on Ext.A1 (the basic document) and Ext.A2 to find that there has been a trend of escalation in the real estate market in the area and also to find that the basic property lay by the side of a thodu and that the acquired properties which had the frontage of N.H. were superior. I find that LAA No.1015/07 - 3 - what the learned Subordinate Judge has ultimately done is to apply the rule of thumb and to grant 30% enhancement on the land value awarded by the land acquisition officer. Having considered the facts which are discernible from the judgment itself and the reasoning leading to the conclusions of the learned Subordinate Judge, it cannot be said that the application of the rule of thumb in this case was in an improper manner. I do not find warrant for admitting this appeal. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE