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 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 728 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.263/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- JAGATHAMMA AMMA, PUTHUVEETTIL MELETHIL, PUNUKANNUR CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, R.PRASAD S/O. JAGATHAMMA AMMA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.728 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the government pertains to acquisition of land in Elampalloor village for the purpose of KIP pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 2-5-1992. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7220/- per Are which was refixed by the reference court under the impugned judgment at Rs. 11,913/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court on the side of the claimant consisted apart from the oral evidence of AW1- the claimant, of Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2 judgment. Ext.A1 sale deed revealed a land value of Rs. 20454.54 per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, was not inclined to rely on Ext.A1 on the reason that Ext.A1 relates to small plot and that the purchase was for residential purposes. Ext.A2 was in respect of acquisition in a nearby village. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was five years earlier. Under Ext.A2, the reference court had granted enhancement by more than 208%. The LAA.No.728/09 2 court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A2 either. Ultimately, what the court below did was to rely on the oral evidence of AW1 and to take into account the nearness of the property under acquisition to the important institutions in the locality, do guess work and conclude that the correct market value of the acquired property is what is fixed under the impugned judgment. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable and that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which is arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any warrant for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.728/09 2