IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 2476 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.28/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ C.USHA, VATTAVILA VEEDU, KALLUVETTANKUZHI, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI,JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.2476 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition in Venganoor village for the purpose of widening of road from Kovalam to Mukkola Reach 1, as per a notification under Section 4(1) published on 25/3/2002. The land acquisition officer, relying on the basis document, awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,702/- per Are. Before the land acquisition officer as well as before the reference court, the respondent claimed value at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The evidence on the side of the claimant respondent consisted of Exts.A1 and A2. Exts.A1 was a sale document dated 14/3/1996 and it reveals land value of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. Ext.A2 was a sale document dated 2/6/1994 and the same also revealed land value of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. Apart from that, the claimant respondent got himself examined as AW1. On the side of the appellant Government, the evidence consisted of the notes to award and documents like the Mahazar, valuation statement and field measurement sketch. L.A.A..No. 2476/2008 2 Significantly, no counter oral evidence was adduced by the Government to the evidence adduced by the claimant for enhancement. 2. Having gone through the judgment under appeal and having heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that on the evidence available on record, the court below was perfectly justified in relying on Ext.A1 and A2. It is seen that even as Exts.A1 and A2 were relied on and it was found by the court below that during the period from the dates of Exts.A1 and A2 till the date of Section 4 (1) notification in this case, the land value has enhanced considerably, what the court below has done is to award only a rate which is lesser than the rate revealed by Exts.A1 and A2. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment under appeal. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk