IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1340 of 2007 (D) --------------------------------- LAR.70/06 OF PRL. SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR ------------ APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR ------------------------------------------------------------- K.V.STEPHEN, S/O.VARKEY, KOLLAMKUDI VEETTIL, MANIKKAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1340 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this appeal is the award of the Reference Court in a Land Acquisition Reference Case pertaining to acquisition of land and building in Kalady village for the purposes of widening of the M.C. Road near Kalady junction. The Reference Court did not award any enhancement towards land value and in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimant we do not have to be worried about that aspect of the matter. There was a three storied building existing on the land under acquisition. For L. A. A. No.1340 of 2007 -2- this building, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,25,525/-. Before the Reference Court, the evidence adduced by the claimant consisted of Ext.A1 Commission Report and Ext.A2 valuation statement. Ext.A2 was prepared by a retired Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department. The author of Ext.A2 was examined as AW2. The learned Subordinate Judge has noticed that there was no serious challenge on the version of AW2 which was to the effect that Ext.A2 was a correct valuation report. We notice that not even formal counter evidence is adduced by the Government to the evidence adduced by the claimants. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having gone through Ext.A2 and L. A. A. No.1340 of 2007 -3- Ext.C1, copies of which were made available to us by Sri.N.Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the respondent we are of the view that it is more or less the correct market value of the building which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any warrant for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed. However, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-