IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 947 of 2003(B) ------------------------------- LAR.70/1996 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ----------------------------------- C. VIJAYAKUMAR, CHILANTHIVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, A/W LAA NOS.378/03 & 1421/02, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.947 & 378 of 2003 and 1421 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Even though Smt.P.N.Sumangala, the learned Government Pleader addressed us very strenuously on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The acquisition of land was in Thirumala village for the purpose of construction of Thrikkannapuram Bridge. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29464/- per Are. The Reference Court relying on Ext.A1 re-fixed the same to Rs.41903/- per Are. It was Ext.A1 document which was relied on by the Reference Court. Ext.A1 L. A. A. No.947/03 & con. cases -2- was properly proved before the Reference Court by examining AW2 who was the Director of Khadi Village and Industries Board to which Ext.A1 property presently belongs. 2. On going through the impugned judgment, we notice that Ext.A1 has been analysed threadbare by the learned Subordinate Judge and that all the relevant inputs were taken into account for arriving at the market value. The learned Subordinate Judge did not grant full value reflected in Ext.A1. 10% cut was made and the present rate of Rs.41903/- per Are was arrived at. The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge, all in all, was reasonable and the market value fixed under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive. L. A. A. No.947/03 & con. cases -3- 3. These appeals are dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-