IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 355 of 2007(C) ------------------------------- LAR.66/01 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR ------------------------ APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR. ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KOCHIN-11. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR. -------------------------------------------------------------- SMT.AMMINI, W/O.SIVARAMAN, PATHAYAPURACKAL, ELANTHIKKARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, A/W LAA.1014/07, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.355 & 1014 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J These appeals preferred by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Puthenvelikkara village for the construction of a treatment plant for the Puthenvelikkara Water Supply Scheme. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 08/01/99. The Land Acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13556/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, various documents were produced by the claimants. But the court below placed reliance only on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 reveal a land value of Rs.92972/- per Are. Though the court below found that the property in L. A. A. Nos.355 & 1014 of 2007 -2- Ext.A1 was comparable to the acquired property, the court below did not become inclined to award the value reflected in Ext.A1. The court below awarded 50% of the value reflected in Ext.A1 property. At the same time, 20% was added for the passage of three years' time and the land value was re-fixed at Rs.42227/- per Are. 2. Having scanned the impugned judgment and having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the approach of the learned Judge was quite reasonable. According to us, it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any warrant for interference. L. A. A. Nos.355 & 1014 of 2007 -3- 3. These appeals are dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-