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 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 9 of 2007() ----------------------- LAR.29/2004 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE LAR ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPL. TAHSILDAR (L.A.) GENERAL, THRISSUR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR ---------------------------------------------- 1. SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.PADINJARETHALAKKAD SANKARAN EZHUTHASSAN, P.O.PUZHAKKAL. 2. RAVINDRAN, S/O. PADINJARETHALAKKAD SANKARAN EZHUTHASSAN, P.O.PUZHAKKAL. ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R1-2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.9 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the government pertains to acquisition of land in Ayyanthole village for the establishment of Industrial Development Plot at Puzhakkal Padam. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 29-07-2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3,710/- per Are for these lands which were all wet lands. The claimants relied on Exts.A1 to A3 documents. Exts.A2 and A3 were rightly rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on the reason that they are post notification documents. Ext.A1 was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on the reason that though the notification was issued on 29-07-2000, the acquisition proceedings started way back in 1993 and it was quite probable that Ext.A1 property was purchased by the purchaser who is an Advocate of the Thrissur Bar in anticipation of the proceedings for acquisition. 2. We are not very much impressed by the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge for rejecting Ext.A1. However, we approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not relying on Ext.A1 since we LAA.No.9/07 2 find that the transaction recorded in Ext.A1 has not been properly proved by examining any of the parties to Ext.A1. Thus the learned Subordinate Judge was left with only the basis document. What the learned Subordinate Judge has done is to grant 20% addition for passage of two year's time between the date of the document and Section 4(1) notification, grant further addition by 70% more taking into account the potentiality of the property, the circumstance that the property was situated within the limits of Thrissur Municipal Corporation, the developments which have been taken place in and around the locality during the period prior to the acquisition and immediately subsequent to the acquisition, the escalation in price of properties in the locality as revealed in Exts.A2 and A3 documents. Thus, ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge would refix the land value at the rate of Rs. 7042.35/- per Are. According to us, the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was reasonable and at any rate, the enhancement presently granted cannot be challenged by the government. This appeal accordingly is dismissed without any order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.9/07 2