IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 1005 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.187/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BRIDGES, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- 1. P.M. MOOSA KOYA, U.K. ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. FATHIMA, U.K. ROAD, KOZHIKODE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2687 OF 2005 IN LAA NO.1005 OF 2005 DISMISSED 21.11.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1005 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 21st November, 2008 JUDGMENT No appearance for the respondents despite service of notice. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Kozhikode District for the construction of a bridge at Udumbrakkadavu pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 25.10.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8820/- per cent. The reference court refixed the land value at Rs.23,600/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge had before him Exts.A1, A2, A.W.1 and X1 for evidence on the side of the claimants. There was absolutely no counter evidence on the side of the Government. Ext.A2 was the judgment of the reference court relating to acquisition in the same village for the construction of the N.H. by-pass pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1), 9 years prior to the notification in this case. The learned Judge found that the acquired properties in Ext.A2 was superior to the acquired properties in this case and that finding, in my opinion, is correct. On that reason the learned Judge became inclined to fix the land value of the acquired properties as on the date of Section 4(1) notification in Ext.A2 at 40% of the rate which had been granted to LAA No.1005/05 - 2 - Ext.A2 property. The learned Judge noticed that the Section 4(1) notification in Ext.A2 was issued nine years prior to the notification in this case. Considering the passage of time, the learned Judge granted an increase of 18%. The learned Judge became inclined to grant so much increase only on the reason that the scope of development of the acquired property was limited unlike the acquired properties in Ext.A2. Having gone through the judgment and having heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the enhancement granted was unreasonable. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the reference court. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE