IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 545 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.143/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.(NH), KESAVADASAPURAM. 2. THE EXCUTIVE ENGINEER,N.H.DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.PRADEEP CHANDRA KUMAR, VAIKUNDAM SADANAM, KOVALAM JUNCTION. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.545 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader, has addressed us very strenuously. However, we do not find any reason to admit this appeal. The acquisition was property in Venganoor village pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) published on 25/3/2002. The land acquisition officer included the property in category C and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.40,623/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds, Ext.A3 Commission report in L.A.R.No. 137/2004 and Ext.C1 commission report in the present case, apart from the oral testimonies of Aws 1 and 2. The counter evidence on the side of the Government consisted of Exts.R1 to R5 and the oral testimony of CW-1. Ext.R3 was notes to award in this case. The court below did not become inclined to rely on Exts.A1 to A3, which reveal higher land value. The court below noticed that in Ext.R3-notes to award, the land acquisition officer had discussed and rejected the document L.A.A..No.545/2009 2 No.531/01 as item No.4. The court below considered that document in the light of the evidence which came on record in the case and found that rejection of that document by the land acquisition officer was not justified. The court also found, on the basis of the evidence including the commission report, that the property should have been included in category-B and not in category A. For the properties in category B, the land acquisition officer had awarded land value of Rs.52,237/-. Ultimately, the court below refixed the value of the property in the present case as 80,000/- per Are. Thus, the present enhancement is on the basis that the property ought to have awarded land value at the Rate of Rs.52,237/- by the land acquisition officer treating the same to be in category B rather than in category -C. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that appreciation of evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge was correct and that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge towards determination of the market value was quite reasonable. According to us, it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time that L.A.A..No.545/2009 3 has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We feel that all the properties included in category B by the land acquisition officer had the market value of Rs.80,000/- per Are. Since we are approving upgradation of the category by the court below, we do not find any reason for admitting this appeal. The appeal will stand dismissed . PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk