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.1323 of 2000 (A) ---------------------------------- LAR.137/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS: --------------------------------- 1. DEVAKI PUNNUPARAMBIL, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE. 2. SARALA, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE. 3. JAYASREE, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE. 4. SUJATHA PUNNUPARAMBIL, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1323 of 2000 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Heard both sides. 2. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court which is impugned in this appeal. The acquisition in question was for the purpose of construction of Railway bridge at Cheruthana village near Haripad. The Land Acquisition Officer granted land value at the rate of Rs.5,896/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court by Rs.6,672/- per Are. The exact date of the relevant Section 4(1) notification in this particular case is not disclosed either to the Reference Court or to us. From the records also it is not possible L. A. A. No.1323 of 2000 -2- to find out the exact date of Section 4(1) notification. This is a case where possession was taken in advance invoking the emergency provisions under Section 17 and this should be why the L.A. Authority has not disclose the date of Section 4(1) notification. The question before us is whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court warrants interference. The above question, according to us, can be answered only in the negative. The court below had evidence only on the side of the claimant. Not even formal counter evidence was adduced by the respondents. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the approach of the learned Sub Judge was quite reasonable and it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which was arrived at by the learned Sub Judge. L. A. A. No.1323 of 2000 -3- 4. This appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-