IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 409 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.66/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------- VENUGOPAL, MUJINAMU VEEDU MEENATHU CHERRRIYIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA. ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 409 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The Government is in appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Sakthikulangara Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 8/11/2002. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.58,395/- per Are. The Reference Court relying mostly on Ex.A1 sale deed in respect of the property in Kollam West Village situated at a distance of 1 K.M. on the same road, executed in favour of Mathrubhumi daily by a local society, refixed the land value at Rs. 1,97,670/-. It is the above refixation which is under challenge. 2. We have considered the rival submissions addressed by the learned Government Pleader Smt. R.Bindu as well as by the learned counsel for the respondent. The question is whether the reliance placed on Ext.A1 document by the court below is justified. True, Ext.A1 was situated in Kollam east Village. L.A.A.No.409/2010 2 Ext.A1 property was situated nearer to important areas of Kollam Corporation than the acquired property. It should not be forgotten that there is a time gap of three years between Ext.A1 and the date of acquisition in this case. What is awarded is only the value paid under Ext.A1. After all, the distance between the two properties is only one kilometere. We do not think that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was unreasonable. We have reason to believe that the rate currently fixed by the Reference Court (below Rs.80,000/- per cent) is not excessive. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk