IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 471 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.79/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT. ---------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT. ---------------------- PERINKOLLANKUZHI MOHAMMED HAJI, PALLIKKAL, KUMMINIPARAMBA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1491 OF 2007 IN LAA NO.471 OF 2007 DISMISSED 4.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.471 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Manjeri in respect of acquisition for the construction of a diversion road pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 3.3.1997. The awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6552/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court consisted of the oral testimonies of A.Ws.1 and 2 on the side of the claimant and that of R.W.1 on the side of the Government. Apart from that, there were Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the claimant and Ext.B1 on the side of the Government. Ext.X1 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was also available. Ext.A3, a document executed between a co-operative society and another person was not relied on by the reference court. The court below relied on the basic document itself, however deleting the cut of 35% made by the land acquisition officer on the land value reflected in that basic document since it was found that such a cut was not justified. After doing so, the court below granted some addition taking into account the passage of time between the date of Section 4(1) notification and the date of the basic document. LAA No.471/07 - 2 - 2. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court, I am of the view that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable. There is no warrant for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE