IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1276 of 2007(D) --------------------------- LAR.9/1991 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, P.W.D. (SC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- 1. N.RADHA, VAKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM. 2. REMA, VAKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM. 3. N.VINOD, VAKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM. 4. N.VENU, VAKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM. 5. N.VAVA ALIAS S.VISWANATHAN, VAKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM. BY ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU FOR R4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA.3154/2007 IN L.A.A. 1276/2007 DISMISSED 3.7.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 1276 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to the acquisition of 3.20 acres of land in vakkom village pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) dated 28.3.1988 for the construction of bridge at Panayil kadavu. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at Rs.8,273/- on the basis of a document three years prior to Section 4 (1) notification and pertains to the land found by the reference court which is not comparable to the acquired land. The reference court rightly found that the reliance placed on the basis of the document was not justified. On the side of the claimant, the main item of evidence was Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was a sale deed to which a local bank is a party. Ext.A1 was executed about three years prior to the Section 4 (1) notification. In the first instant the reference court closed the reference without granting any enhancement finding that even if Ext.A1 is accepted, it will not be possible to pay award more than what is awarded by the land Acquisition Officer. This court in L.A.A. No.551/93 set aside that finding and directed the reference court to L.A.A. No.1276/2007 2 proceed on the basis that Ext.A1 reflects the land value at Rs.9,428/- per cent. The reference court on an analyzing Ext.A1 and the oral testimony of the claimant found that the property covered by Ext.A1 and the acquired property was comparable in many respects. Ext.A2 was produced by the claimant to show that land value in the locality had been steadily increasing during the period of three years between the date of Ext.A1 and date of Section 4 (1) notification. Though the reference court accepted the claimant's version based on Ext.A2 that the land value was increased in the locality the reference court became inclined to grant only slight increase of Rs.572/- over the value reflected by Ext.A1 and thus refixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge in my opinion was quite reasonable and it appears to me that the market value arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge is only slightly less than the correct market value which the property would have fetch had it been sold by the village seller and purchased by the village purchaser. Azad Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that decree has been fully satisfied. On all these reasons, I am of the view that there is no warrant at all for interfering with the impugned judgment. L.A.A. No.1276/2007 3 This L.A.A. is dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk