IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 1063 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.67/2001 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND FIRST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. RAPHEL, S/O.PETHRU, NEDUMPARAMBIL, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.ABEESH JOSE FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.3086/2005 IN LAA NO. 1063/2005 DISMISSED 4/3/2010 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1063 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the requisitioning authority pertains to acquisition of land included in category-A situated in Maradu village for the purpose of widening of National Waterway No.III at the instance of the appellant M/s. Inland Waterways Authority of India. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5/3/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the properties acquired for that purpose into as many as five categories viz. A,B,C,D & E. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties having direct frontage of NH 17 in category A. For those properties, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,0216/- per Are. The court below did not place any reliance on any of the documents produced by the claimant to support his claim for enhancement. Ultimately, what the court below did was to appreciate the oral evidence adduced by the claimant and grant enhancement by 29% over the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer LAA.No.1063/2005 2 based on the basis document. 3. Having scanned the impugned judgment and having considered the submissions of Sri.V.Satharam, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that the enhancement granted by the learned Sub Judge cannot be said to be excessive. We do not find any warrant for interference at the instance of either the Government or the Requisitioning Authority. The appeal will stand dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk