IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 519 of 2005(D) -------------------------- LAR.19/2003 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT: ----------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. KARIMBANAKKAL MARIYAM, W/O.AMMED, MUNDAKKARA, KINALUR VILLAGE, KOYILANDI TALUK. 3. DO-ASHRAF, S/O.AMMED, DO. DO. 4. DO-RASIA, D/O.AMMED, DO. DO. 5. DO-SEENATH, D/O.AMMED, DO. DO. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.519 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the appellant requisitioning authority has addressed me very strenuously and extensively on the various grounds raised in the writ petition, I am not persuaded to uphold any of the grounds since I feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in what he did and the market value arrived at by him is by all probabilities the correct market value of the property on the relevant date. Before the reference court, the claimants had produced Exts.A1 and A2 and there was oral testimony of AW1. There was Commissioner's report -Ext.C1 also. On the side of the respondent various documents were produced including the basis documents relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 documents which were relied on by the respondents in support of their claim for enhancement. The learned Subordinate Judge would prefer the basis document. But noticing that the basis documents were LAA.No.519/05 2 executed some three years prior to the date of promulgation of initial notification under Section 4(1), what the learned Judge did was to give an addition of 1966/- to the value of Rs. 3034/- reflected by the basis document. Learned Subordinate Judge would further notice that in contrast to the basis property the acquired property was having frontage of pakka roads. There was controversy before the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether the basis property was having any road frontage at all. The Commissioner had reported in Ext.C1 that the basis property did not have any road frontage. Even though no steps were taken by the respondents including the appellant for substantiating their objections to Ext.C1, the learned Subordinate Judge would accept the case of the Government and the appellant that the basis lands were having frontage of a mud road having 10 feet width. However, the learned Subordinate Judge would give an addition of Rs. 1000/- per cent for the acquired property obviously taking the view that the property having frontage of a pukka tarred road will have more value than the property having the frontage of a mud road. The above view of the learned Subordinate Judge in my opinion is quite LAA.No.519/05 3 reasonable. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.519/05 4