IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 755 of 2003() ------------------------- LAR.81/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT: ----------------------- KUNJU MOIDEEN, S/O.KUNJU MARAKKAR METHAR,VARISSERY PUTHEN VEETTIL VALLUSSERRY, PERUMBAIKADU. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.755 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th May, 2008 JUDGMENT In this appeal filed by the Government the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Kottayam in LAR No.81 of 1999 is under challenge. That was a reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of acquisition for the construction of a parallel road to M.C.Road from Kottayam to Gandhinagar I Reach. The evidence before the reference court consisted of the oral testimony of the claimant as A.W.1, Ext.A1 copy of judgment in LAR No.272/99 and Exts.R1 and R2, copies of the basic document and the group sketch. Relying on the uncontroverted oral testimony of A.W.1, the learned Subordinate Judge found that Ext.A1 property is more important and commercial point of view than Ext.A1 property and it was noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the mahazar prepared at the time of acquisition that the distance from the Variseri junction to the acquired property is only 85 metres. Relying on Ext.A1 what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to grant enhancement of 60% over the land value fixed by the awarding officer as was done in the case of Ext.A1. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court, I am of the view that the approach L.A.A.No.755/03 - 2 - of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable. I am informed that though an appeal was preferred against Ext.A1, this court dismissed that appeal vide judgment in LAA No.1289/02. It is also brought to my notice that relying on the judgment confirming Ext.A1, this court dismissed LAA No.439/03 which pertains to LAR No.74/99, another case in which Ext.A1 was relied by the reference court. In view of all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. The Appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE