IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 950 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.52/2007 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA , REP BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA) KASARAGOD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, PWD,KANNUR 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS: --------------- K.M.SUHARA, W/O.MAHIM, NEAR KALANAD BUS STOP, CHAMMANAD VILLAGE P.O.KALANAD. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.950 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We do not find any good reason for entertaining this appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Chemmanad Village in Kasaragod Taluk for the formation of Kasaragod – Kanhangad State Highway. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 31/1/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the evidence on the side of the claimant consisted mainly of Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.X1 commission report. On the side of the Government, the basis document was marked as Ext.R3. On the basis of the commission report, the reference court concluded that the property covered by the basis document was not comparable, since unlike the acquired property, the property covered by the basis document did not enjoy the frontage of road. Ext.A1 was a post notification document. It revealed land value of Rs.40,000/- per cent. The reference court did not become inclined to place complete LAA.No.950/2009 2 reliance on Ext.A1. However, relying, to some extent, on Ext.X1 report submitted by the advocate commissioner and taking into account the value revealed in Ext.A1, the court below concluded that the correct market value of the property under acquisition would be Rs.25,000/- per cent. What the court below did was to take the average of the values revealed in Exts.A1 and R3. We are of the view that approach of the court below was quite reasonable and it is more or less the correct market value of the properties at the relevant time which is arrived at by the court below. We notice from the judgment that the court below awarded Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection. Here again the award was based on Ext.X1 commission report. We do not find any warrant for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk