IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 201 of 2000(A) -------------------------- LAR.163/1992 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT : ---------------------- AYSHATHU BEEVI, D/O. AHAMMED, KUNJULA BA, AYSHATHU MANZIL, PUNNATHALA CHERI, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9 /6 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.201 OF 2000 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though some of the grounds raised in this memorandum of appeal filed by the Government are attractive and the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The case relates to acquisition for the purpose of National Highway. The property was in Kilikolloor village and the relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 5/6/1990. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7186/- per Are. Before the reference court, evidence on the side of the claimant consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 and the oral testimony of claimant AW1. There was no counter oral evidence given on the side of the Government. Documentary evidence on the side of the Government consisted of Ext.R1 basis document and Exts.R3 and R4 documents pertaining to the land acquisition file. The court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 sale deed and A2 L.A.A..No.201/2000 2 which was a judgment in connected matters. Ultimately what the court below did was to do guess work and conclude that the market value of the property at the relevant time is 11, 115/- per Are. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we also feel that it is more or less the correct market value which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. Total stakes involved in the appeal is also not much. For these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal will stand dismissed. However, parties are directed to suffer their costs in this appeal. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk L.A.A..No.201/2000 3 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.201 OF 2000 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 9TH JUNE 2009