IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 922 of 2001(A) -------------------------- LAR.70/1998 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT: -------------------------------- V.J.THAMBI, GODWILL COTTAGE, PULIYARAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.922 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Heard Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader and Sri.Ram Mohan G., the learned counsel for the respondent. We do not find any warrant for interference with the impugned judgment. The acquisition was for the construction of 110 K.V. Sub station at Kattakkada. The property was at Kattakkada. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 27/11/92. The Reference Court relying on Exts.A1 and A2 enhanced the land value from Rs.11,502/- per Are to Rs.17,290/- per Are. Exts.A1 and A2 were documents executed in favour of the President of India represented by the District Manager, Telecom. These documents were executed L. A. A. No.922 of 2001 -2- two years prior to the relevant Section 4(1) notification. These documents reveal a high value and what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to cut 30% of the value reflected in the documents. 2. We feel, having gone through the impugned judgment that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable and it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned judgment. 3. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-