IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 LA.App..No. 212 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.32/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------------ 1. SMT.PADMAVATHY AMMA, D/O.LEKSHMI AMMA, MELATHIL VEEDU, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (MM) TELECOM, DISTRICT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.212 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Sarkara village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 23/11/2000. The purpose was establishment of BSNL telephone exchange. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 58,482/- per Are. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of documents - Exts.A1 to A10 and the oral testimony of AW1 on the side of the claimant. There was no counter evidence either on the side of the government or the requisitioning authority, the second respondent. Learned Subordinate Judge relied on Ext.A10 document which was a pre-notification document. It was found by the learned Subordinate Judge relying on the evidence of AW1 as well as the recitals in the document that the property covered by Ext.A10 was comparable in all respects to the acquired property. But the learned Judge noticed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Narain and another v. LAA.No.212/09 2 Union of India (2003(4) SC 481) and found that in contrast to the acquired property, the property covered by Ext.A10 is a small plot and hence took the view that largeness of the size of the acquired property was a minus factor and on that reason deducted a 20% from the value reflected by Ext.A10. The findings of the learned Subordinate Judge founded as they are on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in our view was correct. According to us, it is more or less the correct market at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.212/09 2