IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1128 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.173/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, PAYYANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- 1. ERATHEDATH PATHROSE, S/O MATHAI, KANIYARVAYAL, THRIKANDAMBA, KAITHAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM. 2. MARY PETER, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O LATE K.PATHROSE, KANIYARVAYAL, THRIKANDAMBA, KAITHAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM. 3. MATHUKUTTY PETER, S/O K.PATHROSE, KANIYARVAYAL, THRIKANDAMBA, KAITHAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM. 4. MANJULA PETER, D/O K.PATHROSE, KANIYARVAYAL, THRIKANDAMBA, KAITHAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM. 5. MANOJ PETER, S/O K.PATHROSE, KANIYARVAYAL, THRIKANDAMBA, KAITHAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM. 6. MAYA PETER, D/O K.PATHROSE, KANIYARVAYAL, THRIKANDAMBA, KAITHAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM. LAA 1128/08 7. THE PROJECT OFFICER, OECF, PROJECTS KWA, KOZHIKODE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2504 OF 2008 IN LAA NO.1128 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 3.7.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A. No.1128 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the Government is directed against the enhanced land value given by the reference court to 10 cents of land belonging to the party respondents. The land was situated in Sreekandapuram village and was acquired pursuant to a Section 4(1) notification dated 28.3.1998 for the purposes of Pattuvam Water Supply Scheme. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2900/- per cent which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.5481/- per cent, i.e., giving 75% enhancement by applying the rule of thumb. The evidence adduced by the claimants before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1, a sale deed. Ext.A1 sale deed was found to be in respect of properties situated very near to the acquired property. But Ext.A1 was executed some two months after the notification under Section 4(1). Ext.A1 was an assignment deed in favour of a local convent and it covered an area of 3.75 ares. Ext.A1 reveals centage value of Rs.7733/-. The learned Subordinate Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 since it was seen that Ext.A1 land was having frontage of road which the acquired property did not have. Ext.A2 was the other document relied on by the claimants. Ext.A2 LAA No.1128/08 - 2 - was in favour of Rubco and it revealed a centage value of Rs.15,775/-. The reference court did not place any reliance on Ext.A2 on the ground that the property in Ext.A2 was situated in another desom (near to the town area) and also for the reason that Ext.A2 was executed about one year after the notification under Section 4 (1). Ultimately, the court below keeping in mind Ext.C1 Commissioner's report and the facts emerging from all the documents placed on record by the parties would fix the land value of the acquired properties at Rs.5481/- per cent making a guess work as to what was the prevailing land value at the relevant time in the locality. Having gone through the judgment, I am of the view that it was a good guess which was made by the learned Subordinate Judge. In fact the learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ext.A1 and made necessary reductions for the road frontage advantage of that property was having. The correct land value for the property at the relevant time would have been found almost equal to the value presently found. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the reference court. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE LAA No.1128/08 - 3 -