IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 LA.App..No. 371 of 2010 (C) -------------------------------- LAR.15/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM., BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS. --------------------------------------------------- 1. LEKHA, SREESAILAM, ASRAMAM,KOLLAM. 2. T.S.CHIDAMBARAM, GEETHANJALI, CONTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.371 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal by the Government is directed against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Kollam in respect of acquisition for the purpose of widening of road from Kollam Thaluk Office Junction to Civil Station. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 23/11/98. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,24,777/- per Are. The Reference Court re- fixed the land value at Rs.6,09,810/- per Are. In fact, the claimants/respondents had produced Ext.A1 reflecting a much higher land value. But L. A. A. No.371 of 2010 -2- the court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1. The court below preferred Ext.A2 on the reason that Ext.A2 property and the basis property relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer was lying adjacently. Ext.A2 property was found to be comparable in all respects to the basis property. It was found that the property under acquisition was superior to the basis property in the sense that Ext.A2 property and the basis property were lying at a lower level. The objection to Ext.A2 taken by the Government was that Ext.A2 is executed in favour of a Co-operative Society and the President and Secretary of the society had received some kick backs and hence, paid a fancy price. The learned Subordinate Judge in our opinion rightly rejected this argument and L. A. A. No.371 of 2010 -3- awarded only the value reflected in Ext.A2. It was noticed that the total consideration under Ext.A2 was paid by way of cheque to the vendor. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge was proper and that it is more or less the correct market value of the property that is arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any warrant for interference. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-