IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 822 of 2008 ------------------------- APPELLANT/ RESPONDENTS ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT --------------------- 1. VELAYUDHAN VASAVAN, VAYALVARATHU, CHITTUR MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, MUMBAI, REP. BY THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, T.S.SAHIN, REGIONAL OFFICE, MATHAI MANJOORAN ROAD, THATTAPURAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-14. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.822 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal pertains to acquisition of 1.36 Ares of land in Panmana village for the purpose of widening of a road branching from national highway pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 30-09-1992. The land acquisition officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 2428/- per Are. The reference court would refix the same at Rs. 7527/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 was the court judgment in respect of acquisition of lands pursuant to the very same notification under section 4(1). The land acquisition officer had granted only a slightly lesser amount i.e. Rs. 2127/- per Are than the acquired properties. But under Ext.A1 judgment, the court refixed the land value at Rs. 8057/- per Are. Ext.A2 was a document for sale which had been considered by the land acquisition officer in the award enquiry. The land acquisition officer rejected Ext.A2 for the reason that the sale deed was executed as a security for a chitty transaction. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciating Exts.A1 and A2 became inclined to rely on Exts.A2 since the reasons stated by the land acquisition officer for rejecting Ext.A2 LAA.No.822/08 2 did not appear to be convincing to him. I also feel that the rejection of Ext.A2 by the land acquisition officer on the reason that Ext.A2 sale deed had been executed in connection with a chitty transaction was not justified. Even the land acquisition officer does not have an opinion that Ext.A2 is an artificial document and the value shown therein is a deliberately inflected land value. That being the position, the reliance placed on Ext.A2 was justified. In fact I feel that reliance could have been placed on Ext.A1 also in which case a slightly higher amount could have been granted to the claimant respondent. The only two questions to be examined is whether Ext.A1 has attained finality and whether against this judgment, the requisitioning authority has preferred any appeal. Appellant will serve a copy of the appeal memo on M/s. Menon & Pai. Registry reports that Ext.A1 has attained finality in the sense that L.A.A.No.330/2004 filed against Ext.A1 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 14/11/2007. The Appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.822/08 2