IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 896 of 2008(D) -------------------------- APPELLANT: ----------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: ------------- GOMATHI AMMA,D/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA, VADAKKEKKARA KOCHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLIMON CHERRY,PALLIMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 896 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT I am not impressed by any of the grounds raised nor by the strenuous submissions which were addressed by the learned Government Pleader Sri.Basanth Balaji. Acquisition in question was pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 22.12.1997 for the construction of Pallimon Branch canal of Kallada Irrigation project. The awarding Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.5459/- per are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant placed very strong reliance on Ext.A1 judgment. Ext.A1 pertains to other acquisition cases covered by the very same Section 4 (1) notification. Under Ext. A1 reference court had re- fixed the land value payable for the properties in those cases Rs.13,384/- as against the land value of Rs.5156/- per are fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus Annexure A1 reveals that even for properties found by the Awarding Officer to be inferior in quality than the acquired property the reference court awarded the land value of Rs.13,384/- which was later confirmed by this court in L.A.A. No.757/1999 and 318/2000. The learned subordinate judge , however, did not become inclined to rely L.A.A. No.896/2008 2 on Ext.A1 on the reason that the property covered by Annexure A1 belonged to a different categories. Ultimately, however, the learned Subordinate judge took into account the oral evidence of PW1 which is described as a convincing one regarding the potential value of the property and granted enhancement of 60% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is thus that the impugned judgment awarding enhancement compensation of Rs. 3275/- per are was passed by the learned subordinate Judge. Having considered the judgment of the learned subordinate judge, I am of the view that there is no justification at all for interfering with the enhancement granted by the reference court. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk