IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1638 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.122/2001 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT ----------------------- T.J.STEPHEN, THEKKIL, VENMONY. ADV. SRI.K.PADMAKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 1638 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 26, 2009 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal by the State the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara in LAR No.122/2001 dated 31.3.2006 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.34328/- per Are is under challenge. 2. An extent of 2.25 Ares of land in Venmany village was acquired for the construction of bridge at Pullukadavu as per sec.4(1) notification dated 26.3.1998. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17,164/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the land value to Rs.34,328/- per Are. 3. Sri Basant Balaji, Sr. Government Pleader appearing for the State, argued that the Reference Court without any basis enhanced the land value and that therefore the enhancement awarded by the Reference Court has to be set aside. 4. On the side of the claimant Ext.A3 copy of sale deed No.371/2005 was produced and AWs. 1 to 3 were examined L.A.A. 1638 of 2008 2 before the Reference Court. The commission report was marked as Ext.C2. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. 5. The Reference Court did not rely on Ext.A3 as it was executed 7 years after the date of the notification. The Reference Court, taking into account the extent, nature, lie, location, importance and potentialities of the acquired land, enhanced the land value at Rs.34,328/- per Are. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner before the lower court. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State and having gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants before the lower court, we feel that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is reasonable. That being so, the judgment and decree of the Reference Court has to be confirmed and the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties shall suffer their own costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-