IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 LA.App..No. 301 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.39/2005 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LA NH, KANNUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD ROADS DIVISION, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ K.P.SHADULI, S/O.MAMMED, MALAPPATTAM AMSOM DESOM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.301 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though the senior Government Pleader has addressed us strenuously, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the reference court. The acquisition was for the purpose of Malappuattam Munampu Kadavu Bridge in Malappattam village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5/1/2002. The land acquisition officer relied on document relating to the property situated at remote area and fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1461/- per cent. Before the reference court the claimant relied on Ext.A1 document executed some nine months after the relevant section 4(1) notification. Ext.A1 revealed land value of Rs.21,666/- per cent. Apart from Ext.A1, the claimant got a commissioner deputed and commissioner submitted Ext.C1 report. In Ext.C1 the commissioner recommended land value of Rs.15,000/- per cent. The learned Judge did not become inclined to consider recommendation of Ext.C1, since recommendation was based on L.A.A.No.301 of 2009 2 Ext.A1 post notification document. The learned Subordinate Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 on the reason that it is a post notification document. Finally what the learned Judge did was to make a guess regarding the market value of the property and fixed market value at Rs.4000/- per cent. 2. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court, we are of the view that what has been done by the learned Judge is correct. Significantly no counter evidence was adduced from the side of the Government to the evidence adduced by the claimant. Ext.C1 report was to the effect that, unlike the basis property, the acquired properties were situated in commercial areas of the town having frontage of the main road. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk