IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1871 of 2002 -------------------------- LAR.103/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. T.KRISHNAN, THIRUVANGALATH HOUSE, KOTTOOLI, P.O. KOZHIKODE 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/3/2009 ALONG WITH CO NO. 16 OF 2004, THE COURT ON 30/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== L.A.A.NO. 1871 OF 2002 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.16 OF 2004 ============================ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The land acquisition appeal filed by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Chevayur Village in Kozhikode Taluk pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 9-12-1993 for the purpose of construction of Calicut bye-pass . The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7480/- per cent for wet land and at the rate of Rs.8427/- per cent for garden land. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of the oral evidence of the claimant as PW1 and Ext.A1, copy of a sale deed dated 11-12- 1995 and Ext.A2 certified copy of judgment in L.A.R.278/1994. Apart from that there was a report by the Advocate Commissioner,Ext.C1 on the basis of a local inspection . The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that Ext.A2 judgment was in a case for acquisition pursuant to the same notification and for the same purpose. It was found that the land value had been refixed for dry lands at the rate of Rs.30,000/- LAA 1`871/2002 & CROSS OBJECTION =-2- per cent and for wet land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent. Since there was absolutely no counter evidence adduced on the side of the Government to the evidence adduced by the claimant, we would have been inclined to dismiss the appeal preferred by the Government, since according to us, the learned subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in relying on Ext.A2 judgment. It is seen that along with the Memorandum of Cross objection, Annexure-A judgment in L.A.R.No.l98/98 is produced. It is true that in Annexure-A judgment, Rs.60,000/- has been refixed as the value for the garden land involved in that case and that the date of 4(1) notification is also the same. But what we find is that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded much higher value for the garden land in Annexure-A judgment. This means that Annexure-A property is superior to the acquired property. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Both the appeal and the Cross Objection are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks. LAA 1`871/2002 & CROSS OBJECTION =-3- ks.