IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 430 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.268/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- G.AYYAPPADAS, SREECHAKRAM, KURISSADI, VELLANVILA LANE, NALANCHIRA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009 ALONG WITH LAA.NO.494/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.430 & 494 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Both these cases pertain to acquisition of land in Attipra village for the purpose of widening of road at Kuzhivila junction. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 21-04-1999 and the awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 42447/- per Are. In L.A.A.No.430/09 the claimants produced Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents executed on the 30th of December 1996, some three years prior to the date of the relevant Section 4(1) notification. These documents revealed a land value of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent equivalent to Rs. 2,47,000/- per Are. The claimant in L.A.A.No.430/09 was examined and he deposed that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 were comparable with the acquired property. The learned Subordinate Judge also perused the documents and found on the basis of the recitals therein that the properties covered by those documents were comparable to the acquired properties. We notice that there is no LAA.No.430 & 494 of 2009 2 counter evidence on the side of the government to the evidence of the claimants in L.A.A.No.430/2009. Under the above circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in relying on Exts. A1 and A2 and granting enhancement at rate far below the value revealed in Exts.A1 and A2. We do not find any room for interfering with the judgment impugned in L.A.A.No.430/2009. Since the acquisition which is subject matter of L.A.A.No.494/2009 is for the same purpose and pursuant to the very same notification and the land acquisition officer had treated that property to have the same value, it is to be found that reliance placed by the reference court on the judgment in L.A.R.No.268/04 pertaining to L.A.A.No.430/2009 is justified. The result is that both these appeals will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.430 & 494 of 2009 2