IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1760 of 2007(D) --------------------------- LAR.198/2000 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. NALINAKSHAN, (PANAYIL VEEDU), ERUPURA VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. 2. CHANDRIKA, (PANAYIL VEEDU), ERUPURA VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1760 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. We are not inclined to admit this appeal preferred by the Government against the award of enhanced compensation by the reference court in this case pertaining to acquisition of land in Petta village for the construction of New International Passenger Terminal at Chakkai pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 04/02/1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 74105/- per Are. Before the reference court, the evidence on the side of the claimant respondent consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed and the oral testimony of the claimant as AW1. On the side of the appellant State, there was no counter oral evidence and the evidence consisted only of Ext.R1 Mahazer and Ext.R2 notes to award. Ext.A1 sale deed was a pre-notification document which revealed a land value of Rs. 45,000/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that the property covered by the document which had been discussed by the LAA.No.1760/07 2 awarding officer as serial No.7 in his notes to award was inferior to the acquired property and that the land value reflected in that document is Rs. 60,000/- per cent. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the correct market value of the property at the relevant time should be atleast the market value reflected in Ext.A1 is reasonable. It is brought to our notice that in other cases pertaining to acquisition for the very same purpose pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification, the enhancement granted by the reference court at the present rate has been approved by this court. In view of these reasons, this appeal will stand dismissed in limine and the impugned judgment will stand confirmed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1760/07 2