IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 114 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.12/2009 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS IN LAR. ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA) ICTT, VALARPADAM,ELOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P..SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & ADDL.RESPONDENTS NO.2 IN L ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAVITHRI, D/O.SUBDRA, KOONAMTHARA, MULAVUKAD-682 504. 2. SUBRAMANIYAN, S/O.KUNJAN BAVA, KOONAMTHARA,MULAVUKAD-682 504. 3. MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.KUNJAN BAVA, KOONAMTHARA,MULAVUKAD-682 504. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, W.ISLAND-682 003. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R4 SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN FOR R1,R2,R3 SMT.P.A.SULEKHA FOR R1 TO3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.114 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Ernakulam refixing the value of land from Rs.67,891/- per Are to Rs.5,86,895/- per Are. The property was in Mulavukad village and the acquisition was for the purpose of construction of 4 line connectivity from Vallarapadam to Kalamassery. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 13/2/2008. The court below relied on Ext.A1 sale document. Ext.A1 was pre notification sale deed reflecting land value of more than Rs.6 Lakhs per Are. The court below did not add any amount to the amount reflected in Ext.A1 for passage of time. The court below treated the property to be included in category 1. What the court below did was to make a deduction of 5% on the value reflected in Ext. A1 to arrive at the market value of the property under acquisition. This was done on the basis that the value of L.A.A..No.114/2011 2 properties in category 2 is 95% of properties in category 1 comparable to A1. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that approach of the court below was some what reasonable. Hence, we dismiss this appeal. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk