IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 954 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.61/2007 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, (THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, KASARAGOD), REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, PWD, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- VELLIODAN SUDHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR @ P.NARAYANAN, CHATHANGAI, MARIYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KALANAD VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.SHASHIDHARAN, S/O.LATE P.NARAYANAN NAIR, CHATHANGAI, MARIYIL HOUSE,P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KALANAD THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 954 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. We do not find any warrant for entertaining this appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Kalanad Village for the purpose of widening of National Highway. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 11-1- 2005. L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent, which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.32,500/- per cent. Reference Court relied on Ext.A1 document executed some two three months after the 4(1) notification. The genuineness of Ext.A1 was not in dispute at all. What the learned Subordinate Judge has done is to rely on Ext.A1 executed in favour of KSTP Division, Kozhikode for Public Works Department by a party whose land was also acquired for the same purpose. The learned Subordinate Judge did not award the value as reflected in LAA. N0. 954/09 -2- Ext.A1 but awarded only 65% of that value. The approach was quite reasonable. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-