IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 349 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.60/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 ----------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA), KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------------- 1. BAPPUTTY, KUNNUMMAL THAZHATH (DIED) VENGERI . 2. SOUMINI, KUNNUMMAL THAZHATH VENGERI. 3. KUNNUMMAL SIVANANDAN, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM. 4. KUNNUMMAL BABU, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM. 5. KUNNUMMAL VINODINI, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM 6. KUNNUMMAL GEETHA, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM. 7. KUNNUMMAL REMA, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM. 8. THE SECRETARY, CALICUT CORPORATION. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 349 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.P.K.Babu, addressed strenuous submissions before us, we do not find any reason to admit this appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Vengeri Village of Kozhikode Disrict for the purpose of widening of Paroppady – Kannadikkal road. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 7/1/1997. The awarding officer granted land value at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 sale document executed prior to Section 4(1) notification revealing land value of Rs.40,000/- per cent. Apart from that, there was Ext.A2 judgment of the same court in other L.A.R cases relating to another acquisition. Under Ext.A2, the court had refixed the land value of the properties involved there at Rs.60,000/- per cent. Moreover, there was a commissioner's report also and the commissioner, on a comparison of the acquired property with Ext.A1 property, recommended for L.A.A..No.349 of 2009 2 granting land value at Rs.65,000/- per cent opining that the acquired property was superior to A1 property. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time, which had been arrived at by the learned Sub Judge. The properties were already enjoying road frontage since the purpose of acquisition was for widening of the road. The nearness of the property to the various important educational and other institutions in the locality was reported by the Advocate Commissioner. It is very highly probable that Ext.A2 judgment was in respect of an acquisition pursuant to Section 4(1) notification, prior to the Section 4(1) notification in this case. For all the above reasons, this appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk