IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 LA.App.No. 472 of 2005 ----------------------------- LAR.221/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT: ------------------ K. BABY, T.C.38/2696, VANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALAI P.O., KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.R. ANANDAKUTTAN SRI. B. SATHIQ SRI. R.S. MADHU SRI. MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No. 472 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the reference court, II Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum. Acquisition is for widening of Choolakkattupalayam- Karamana road. The total extent involved is only 0.35 Ares. Section 4(1) notification is dated 28.11.1994. 2. Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,42,574/- per Are. The reference court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.2,09,910/- per Are. The claimant adduced documentary evidence as Exhibits A1 to A4. AW1 was also examined on his side. Exhibits R1 and R2 documents were marked on the side of the respondent. 3. The court on evidence found that the documents produced by the claimant cannot be relied. However, it was also found that there was no justification on the part of Land Acquisition Officer in rejecting Item No.4 transaction involving a transfer of property to Indian Oil Corporation where the land L.A.A.No. 472/005 2 value is Rs.2,09,910/- per Are. The only reason stated by the Land Acquisition Officer is that the same reflects an attractive price. We are afraid the approach cannot be justified. The purchase is made by a public limited company in the central sector. That purchase is prior to the acquisition and in the same year. When such a reliable evidence is available for the indication of actual land value prevailing at the place during the time of Section 4(1) notification, there is no justification in discarding the same by merely stating that it is for an attractive price. May be the place is attractive. That does not necessarily mean the price is attractive. The purchase price by the central sector company reflects the actual land value. Therefore, the court is justified in placing reliance on the said transaction in respect of the adjacent property which is similar and similarly situated and fixing the land value at the same rate as in Item No.4. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. smp