IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 85 of 2006() ----------------------------------- LAR.87/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, CHEMBILODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. MR.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------- 1. KALLIYADANKANDY MOHAMMED BACKER, S/O.ABDULLA, KALLIYADANKANDY HOUSE, P.O.MOUVANCHERY, KANNUR. 2. ELAMBILAT RAYAROTH IBRAHIIM HAJI, ASEENA MANZIL, MUTHUKUTTY, VANDICHAL P.O., P.O.VOUVANCHDERY, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, MR.M.K.SUMOD. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal No.85 of 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This is an appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority. The properties under acquisition were in Irivery Village of Kannur Taluk. Relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 21.8.1997 and the acquisition was for the purpose of the appellant requisitioning authority's bus stand. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3600/- per cent. The reference court relied on the very documents of title under which the claimants that come on the properties. The document is of the year 1993. They revealed the land value of Rs.8000/- per cent. 2. Mr.I.V.Pramod, the learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned judgments on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He submitted that in similar cases, the court below has re- fixed the land value only at Rs.6,000/-. 3. The above submission of the learned counsel is not LAA No.85 of 2006 2 supported by any evidence on record. 4. What the court below done is to grant additions for the passage of four years time. Though it would appear that the additions granted by the learned subordinate judge for passage of time is excessive, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. We find that against the oral evidence adduced by the claimant, there was no counter evidence. We also notice that the Advocate Commissioner's who inspected the properties covered by the other documents produced by the claimant in support of the enhanced land value have recommended for value higher than what is now fixed. We feel that the approach of the learned subordinate judge was quite reasonable and hence the impugned judgment is not liable for interference. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/