IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No.1245 of 2000 (A) --------------------------------- LAR.3/1998 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS: --------------------------------- 1. PALLISSERY NARAYANAN KUTTY 2. PALLISSERRY VALLY 3. PALLISSERRY SOUMINI 4. PALLISSERRY PUSHPA 5. PALLISSERRY VIJAYAN 6. PALLISSERRY SREEJA 7. PALLISSERRY SHYNI 8. SUDEESH (MINOR) REP. BY GUARDIAN, 2ND RESPONDENT PALLISSERRY VALLY NEDUVA VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 9. EX. ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) MANJERI ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1245 of 2000 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal preferred by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Neduva village for the construction of approach road to Kundankadavu Bridge. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 23/02/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,410/- per cent. The Reference Court re-fixed the same at Rs.7,000/- per cent. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of the oral testimonies of the parties and mainly Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2 judgment in L.A.R.52/96. The Advocate Commissioner's Report and sketch were also in evidence as Exts.C1 and C2. The L. A. A. No.1245 of 2000 -2- learned Sub Judge who analysed the entire evidence adduced by the parties did not rely on any particular document. However, keeping in mind the data gatherable from all the documents, what the learned Judge did was to re-fix the land value at Rs.7,000/- per cent which incidentally is the land value awarded to the claimant in L.A.R.52/96. It is seen from the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1627/98 (appeal preferred by the claimant in L.A.R.52/96) that this Court has re-fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent and thus, granted enhancement over the value awarded by the Reference Court. According to us, the above judgment of this Court in L.A.R.1627/98 itself can be justification for approving enhancement granted under the impugned judgment. This appeal will stand dismissed without any L. A. A. No.1245 of 2000 -3- order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-