IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 625 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.534/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. LEKSHMIKUTTY PILLAI RAJAMMA PILLAI, W/O.MK. BHASKARAN PILLAI, IDOCHINATHU VEEDU, ERUVA P.O, KAYAMKULAM. 2. E.B. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN PILLAI, IDOCHINATHU VEEDU, ERUVA P.O, KAYAMKULAM. 3. E.B. MOHANKUMAR, S/O. K. BHASKARAN PILLAI, IDOCHINATHU VEEDU, ERUVA P.O, KAYAMKULAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 625 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We do not find any ground to admit this appeal, which pertains to acquisition of land in Pathiyoor Village for th purpose of widening of Eruvakakkanad Road. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 10/12/1985. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 6,889/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted mainly of Exts.A1 sale deed dated 19/3/1983 and the oral testimonies of AWs 1 and 2. There was absolutely no counter evidence on the side of the appellant Government. Ext.A1 reveals value of Rs.59925/- per Are. The court below noticed that Ext.A1 property was much more important than the acquired property and therefore did not become inclined to award the value reflected in Ext.A1. What the court below did was to make a deduction of 60% and award 40% of the value revealed in Ext.A1. L.A.A..No.625/2009 2 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment we also feel that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was reasonable and it is more or less the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed, but in the circumstances no order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk