IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 361 of 2010 ---------------------------- LAR.1/2005 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPOPNDENT IN LAR -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT 1 & RESPONDENT 2 IN LAR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.J.OOMMEN, PULIMOTTIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE MURI,CHENNITHALA VILLAGE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN FOR R1 SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.634 of 2010 & L. A. A. No.361 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J C. M. Application No.634/2010 Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file counter affidavit to the application for condonation of delay. We are not inclined to grant time. After all it is the Government that is filing application for condonation of delay and apparently convincing explanation is offered through the affidavit. We condone the delay keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) and Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkunwar (AIR 1987 SC 1726). L.A.A. No.361/10 This appeal by the Government pertains to L. A. A. No.361 of 2010 -2- acquisition of land in Chennithala village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26/02/98. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.28,736/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant produced Ext.A2 which was a post notification document. The court below did not rely on Ext.A2. Ultimately what the court below did was to take into account the importance of the locality and lie and nature of the property and enhance the market value by 70% and re-fix the market value at Rs.50,288/- per Are. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the market value re-fixed by the Reference Court is more or less equal to the market value of the property at the relevant time. But we find that it was a large extent which was involved in the acquisition. We, rely on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Atma Singh (dead) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana & ors. (2008(2) SCC 568) and make a cut of 5% in view of the largeness of the extent. This means that the market value L. A. A. No.361 of 2010 -3- of the land under acquisition will stand re-fixed at Rs.47,800/- per Are. In all other respects the impugned judgment will stand confirmed. 3. The appeal is allowed as above. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-