IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 641 of 2009 (A) --------------------------------- LAR.60/2005 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.LEELA KADAVAN, D/O.LATE POTHEN, CHALAKKAL CHEMBARAKKY KARA, VAZHAKULAM PANCHAYATH. 2. WATER TREATMENT PLANT AT VAZHAKULAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VAZHAKULAM PANCHAYATH. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.641 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Though Sri.P.K.Babu, Senior Government Pleader has addressed us very strenuously on the basis of the various grounds raised in this appeal, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment warrants interference. The acquisition was of property in Vazhakulam Grama Panchayath for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 21/01/04. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.27160/- per Are. The Reference Court re-fixed the land value at Rs.41,186/- per Are relying on Ext.A3 sale deed. Ext.A3 sale deed was in L. A. A. No.641 of 2009 -2- respect of a fairly large extent of 30 cents and the land value revealed as per Ext.A3 was Rs.41,186/- per Are. The Reference Court found on the basis of evidence that the acquired property was comparable to Ext.A3 property in all respects. Ext.A3 is a pre- notification document and there was no counter evidence at all adduced by the Government to the documentary evidence adduced by the claimants. To us also, it appears that Ext.A3 was revealing a genuine transaction. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the learned Sub Judge was justified in placing reliance on Ext.A3. We also feel that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which is arrived at by the learned Sub Judge. L. A. A. No.641 of 2009 -3- 3. This appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-