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. 720 of 2006(D) -------------------------- LAR.141/2000 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIAMNTS & 2 RESPONDENT : --------------- RAMANI, D/O. SETHU AMMA, MUDUMBI PUTHEN VEEDU, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM. 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.720 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. It has not been possible to serve the respondent/claimant with notice in this appeal so far. We, therefore, have heard Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader on the merits of the appeal. Though the Government Pleader has addressed us strenuously, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the reference court. The property was in Pettah village and the acquisition was for the purpose of International Airport pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 4/2/1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.,62,929/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A3. Exts.A2 and P3, being post notification documents, were rightly rejected by the reference court. The oral evidence in the case consisted of testimony of AW-1 claimant only. There was absolutely no counter oral evidence on the side of the L.A.A.No.720/2006 2 Government. The court below noticed that Ext.A1 document has some relevance. Further, considering the superiority of Ext.A1 property, what the court below did was to make deduction over the value revealed in Ext.A1 and ultimately fix the market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per Are. Having gone through the impugned judgment carefully, we are of the view that approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk