IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 580 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.184/1999 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. HARIHARAN,SWAPNA,T.C.2/1240, POTTAKKUZHI, PATTOM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1283/2008 IN L.A.A.NO.580 OF 2008 DISMISSED 20-06-2008 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 580 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though learned Government Pleader has addressed me very strenuously, I am not inclined to admit this appeal preferred by the Government. This case pertains to acquisition of 1.02 ares of land in Survey No. 165 of Pattom village situated within the limits of Thiruvananthapuram city corporation. The land value fixed by the officer was Rs.45,257/- per are. This was on the basis of sale deed 2954/1995 of Pattom Sub Registrar office which revealed a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- for six cents of land. The claimants produced Exts.A1 and A2. The reference court noticed that A1 and A2 properties are situated adjacent to the acquired property and that A1 and A2 related to plots of 6 cents and 4 cents each. It was seen that much higher value than the value revealed by the basic document 2954/1995 had been paid under Ext.A1 and A2. Nevertheless the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to award the land value revealed by A1 and A2,. However relying on A1 and A2 for WPC.No.580/08 2 arriving at a finding regarding the prevailing market value of the area what the Subordinate Judge did was to award a 40% increase on the land value fixed by the land acquisition officer. Thus it is seen that the Rule of thumb has been applied by the officer. I find that in this case such application was warranted and the enhancement given is reasonable. I do not find any ground to admit this appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.580/08 2