IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 956 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.40/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ---------------------------------- 1. VICTORIA J.,PADIYANGADAN, HOUSE NO.EP IV-73, SUNBIT,P.O. ELATHUR,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS & BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KERALA LTD. ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR(NO VAK) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.956 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We do not find any warrant for interference with the judgment under appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Elathur village in Calicut district for the purpose of construction of Railway over bridge. The property was enjoying frontage of existing National Highway. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 02/12/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.20,090/- per cent which was enhanced by the Reference Court at Rs.60,000/- per cent. The main item of evidence was Ext.A1 and report of the Commissioner. In Ext.A1, the distance between Ext.A1 property and acquired property was 50 metres. Ext.A1 L. A. A. No.956 of 2009 -2- reveal a centage value of Rs.1 lakh. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to award the entire centage value revealed in Ext.A1 for the reason that the Advocate Commissioner did not inspect and compare Ext.A1 property with the acquired property. But the Advocate Commissioner recommended for much more than what is now awarded. We feel that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge was proper and it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at under the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-