IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 163 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.528/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------- BHAVANI, MULLAVAATHE THARAYIL, KARICHOL MURI, VIYAPURAM VILLAGE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 163 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader has addressed me very strenuously, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. The appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Veeyapuram Village for the purpose of strengthening of Harippad – Veeyapuram road. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 27/4/1991. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4837/- per Are. It was refixed by the court at Rs.13,836/ per Are. The court mainly relied on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R. No.353/1993. Ext.A1 related to the acquisition for the same purpose in respect of another reach of the same road. Relevant section 4(1) notification in Ext.A1 was on 6/11/1991 i.e. seven months after the relevant section 4 (1) notification in the present case. The learned Judge noticed that the land acquisition officer had treated Ext.A1 and the present properties differently by awarding land value at the rate of Rs.9,606/- for Ext.A1 properties. The court under Ext.A1 refixed the land value for Ext.A1 property at the rate of Rs.31122/- per Are. Even though the respondent claimed the same land value for her properties, the court did not become inclined to grant that land value. The court found that Ext.A1 property was superior in as much as that property was situated near to the Harippad Town. The court concluded that the value of the present properties will be 60% of the refixed value as per Ext.A1. 2. Having gone through the judgment and having heard the submission, I feel that the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge are reasonable. To a certain extent, the ratio, which the land acquisition officer maintained between A1 property and the present property has been maintained by the reference court also. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk