IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1494 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.22/2006 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------------------------------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT NO.2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNIE, W/O.SEBASTINE, THAZHATHU VEETTIL, HOSPITAL ROAD, P.O.CHALAKUDY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHANDER, SC, RBDC,KOCHI.- R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ==================== L.A.A.No. 1494 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 0.0070 hectors of land in Chalakudy village, for the purpose of construction of railway over bridge at Chalakudy, pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) dated 2.3.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.38,570/- relying on the basic documents before the reference court. 2. The evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A3 and the oral testimony of AW1, from the side of the claimant. Apart from Ext.C1 and C2, commissioner's report and plan. On the side of the Government, it consisted of Exts.B1 to B3. Ext.B3 was the basis document. 3. Though basis document was produced, no attempt was made by the Government to prove that the value reflected in the document reveals the correct market value in the area, at the relevant time. The learned Sub Judge relying on Ext.C1, found that Ext.B3 basis document was not a proper guide for determining the correct market value. The learned Judge did not become inclined to L.A.A.No. 1494 OF 2008 2 rely on the documents produced by either respondents. All the same, relying on Exts.C1 and C2 as well as the oral testimony of CW1, the commissioner, the learned Judge granted nominal increase of 20% over the value revealed by the Government. 4. Having considered the findings of the learned Sub Judge, I am of the view that the approach of the learned sub Judge was proper. It is seen that a further amount of Rs.10,000/- was also given to the respondents towards compensation for injurious affection of the remainder property of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, on account of the construction of the railway over bridge, the direct road frontage which the remainder properties were otherwise enjoying, was lost and the commercial importance of the properties became diminished. The learned Judge noticed some merit in the contention and relying on the commissioner's report, granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-. I am of the view that it cannot be said that the learned Sub Judge went wrong on that score either. Accordingly, the appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE bkn/-