IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No.1184 of 2009 (A) -------------------------------- LAR.137/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),KOCHI REFINERIES LTD,VYTTILA, N.F.GATE,TRIPUNITHURA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------------------------- 1. M.SIVAKUMAR,S/O.SEKHARAN MENON, SRIVILLA, MATTANCHERRY. 2. M.K.DAS,S/O.KESAVAN,MOOSARIKUDIYIL, VELLAPPILLY(S),ALUVA. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFO PARK,KUSUMAGIRI,KAKKANAD. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED, SC, INFO PARK THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1184 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader addressed us very strenuously assailing the impugned judgment on the various grounds raised in this memorandum of appeal. But, we notice that the property was in Kakkanadu village near to Ernakulam District Headquarters. Section 4(1) notification was published on 18th July, 2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.82,800/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied mainly on the judgments of the same court in L.A.R.156/07 and L.A.R.158/07. The properties L. A. A. No.1184 of 2009 -2- involved in those two cases were acquired for the same purpose pursuant to same notification. But, they were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in a different category. The court noticed that under those judgments, the Reference Court has granted cent percent enhancement. The court below did not become inclined to grant so much percentage of enhancement to the property under acquisition in this case. This was because those properties were found to be in a superior category. The court below has given reasons for not granting cent percent increase for the property under acquisition. What the court below did is to grant 75% increase over what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Having scanned the impugned judgment and having taken into account the importance of the L. A. A. No.1184 of 2009 -3- locality where the property under acquisition was situated, we are of the view that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. At any rate, we do not find warrant for interference at the instance of the Government or the Requisitioning Authority. The appeal is dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-