IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 LA.App..No. 75 of 2006() ------------------------ LAR.25/2002 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS A & B: ------------------------------ 1. P.P. ABDULLA, PUTHIYA PANDIKASALA, VENGALAM P.O. 2. FAZEELA KADER KUTTY, PANDIKASALA PARAKKAL, VENGALAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, R.B.D.C., KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER LATHA T.THANKAPPAN SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA,SC,ROADS & BRI FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 75 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their property in Chemancherry village was acquired for the construction of overbridge at Vengalam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.10,200/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants did not adduce any evidence. That court, however, looked into and relied on its own judgment in L.A.R. No.1/2003, which was the judgment in another case pertaining to the very same acquisition, and refixed the land value at Rs.19,000/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised . Regarding the inadequacy of the land value refixed by the court below, it is urged that the recommendation of the advocate commissioner that Rs.50,000/- is the correct market value of the land should have been accepted. The learned counsel for the appellants addressed us in detail. According to him, the commissioner's LAA.No.75/2006 2 recommendation should have been accepted. He would then argue that no compensation was awarded for the residential building which existed on the property. 3. Srii.Shyson P.Manguzha, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan learned senior Government Pleader would oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. According to them, this was a case where the evidence adduced by the claimants in support of their claim is nil. The recommendation of the commissioner could not have been accepted as the same is not supported by any document. The learned Sub Judge has very liberally granted the present rate by looking into a judgment having considerable probative value. Smt.Latha T.Thankappan in particular would point out that neither before the court below nor in the present appeal memorandum, there is claim for further compensation for the building. Evidence in this case falls short of holdings that there was a building even. 4.We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We find force in the submissions of Sri.Shyson P.Manguzha as well as Smt.Latha T.Thankappan. LAA.No.75/2006 3 Ext.A1, as indicated in the judgment had considerable probative value as the same is in respect of the same acquisition. The appellants should be grateful to the court below for having suo motu relied on the judgment in L.A.R. No.1/2003 in the present case where they did not adduce any evidence to support their claim for enhancement in land value. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants for higher compensation for the building . As rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader, in the present appeal the appellants' claim is confined to the claim for land value. As indicated by the learned Sub judge, no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the appellants in support of their claim for building value. The Result of the above discussion is that the appeal will stand dismissed, however without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk