IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 376 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.4/2004 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), KOYILANDY. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LAR --------------------------------------------------- 1. CHERUVALLIMEETHAL CHEERU CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 2. PADINHARE VATHIL KELAPPAN CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 3. AYELATHU JUJILA, D/O.KELAPPAN CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 4. MAVILATTU RAMANUNNI NAMBIAR CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 5. KOTTAYAMPURATHU MARTHA, D/O.CHIRUTHA MEPPAYOOR VILLAGE. 6. RAYAROTHU AMMALU, D/O.CHIRUTHA CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 7. AYALATHU PREMALATHA, D/O.CHIRUTHA CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 8. THADATHIL VALSALA, D/O.CHIRUTHA CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 9. PUTHUKULANGARA PUSHPALATHA @ PUSHPAJA D/O.CHIRUTHA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 10. AYALATHUMOHANAN, S/O.CHIRUTHA CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE. 11. KOOTHALI MOOPPIL NAIR, KOOTHALI. 12. PREJITHA, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN CHERUVALLI MEETHAL, MUYIPOTH, MEPPAYOOR. 13. ADARSH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER PREJITHA. 14. UN NAMED CHILD, AGED 6 MONTHS REP. BY MOTHER PREJITHA. 15. VALIYIL MALATHI, W/O.NARAYANAN MUYIPOTH, P.O.MEPPAYOOR. 16. HEMIL KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN MUYIPOTH, P.O.MEPPAYOOR. 17. HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN MUYIPOTH, P.O.MEPPAYOOR. 18. AYALATHU KALYANI, MUYIPOTH AMSOM VENNARAKODE DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK. 19. AYALATHU NARAYANI, MUYIPOTH AMSOM VENNARAKODE DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK. 20. THE SECRETARY CHERUVANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU FOR R20 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R5,8,9,10,18,19 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.376 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is remaining in the defect list for the reason that service of notice on all the respondents is not completed. We have gone through the impugned judgment and we have heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader and those of Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel for those who have entered appearance before this Court. 2. The case pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a stadium at Cheruvannur near Vadakara. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification L. A. A. No.376 of 2008 -2- was published on 07/08/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on the basis document and fixed land value at the rate of Rs.1508/- per cent. Before the Reference Court the claimants produced Exts.A1 to A3. There was Ext.X1 Commission Report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of the inspection of not only the property under acquisition but also other properties including the properties covered by Ext.A1. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ext.A1 and re-fixed land value at Rs.3043/- per cent. In fact, RW1 the Land Acquisition Officer himself conceded in his evidence that but for the existence of a building at the time of acquisition in Ext.A1 property would have been taken into account. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext.X1 reported that Ext.A1 land was comparable in all respects to the acquired property. L. A. A. No.376 of 2008 -3- The distance between the two properties was also not much. The learned Subordinate Judge perused Ext.A1 and noticed that the description of the property in Ext.A1 did not reveal the existence of any building at the time of transaction. The report of the Advocate Commissioner was that the building which existed at the time of his inspection was only three or four years old. Obviously, the building was a new one constructed by the purchaser under Ext.A1. We are of the view that Ext.A1 reveal a land value of Rs.3043/- per cent though Ext.A1 was executed two years prior to Section 4(1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge became inclined to award only the rate revealed in Ext.A1. We are of the view that the approach of the learned Judge was quite reasonable and according to us, there is no warrant for interference. The appeal L. A. A. No.376 of 2008 -4- will stand rejected. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-