IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 22 of 2009() ------------------------ LAR.205/1995 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H, KOZHIKODE. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- POONCHOLA SADANANDAN, THIRUVANNUR NADA POST, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.22 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This appeal filed by the appellant pertains to acquisition of land comprised in R.Sy.No.22-19-399/1 of Panniyankara Village for the purpose of widening of Calicut Mini Bye-pass pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 8.7.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.4,065/- per cent. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed of 1995 and the oral testimonies of AW1 the claimant and AW2 the party to Ext.A1, apart from Ext.C1 report submitted by the Commissioner on the basis of local inspection in which he compared basis property A1 and property under acquisition. Learned Subordinate Judge re- fixed the land value at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The court below did not become inclined to award the land value in Ext.A1. However it is noticed L.A.A.22/09 2 that when called up for adducing evidence, the Government did not adduce any evidence. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the impugned judgment is quite reasonable and according to us the market value fixed under the impugned judgment is more or less the correct market value prevalent at the relevant time. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb The amount shown as “Rs.1,00,000/- per cent” in the last portion of page 1 of the judgment dated 04/01/2010 in L.A.A.22/2009 is corrected as “Rs.45,000/- per cent” vide order dated 01/03/2010 in I.A.468/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)