IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1331 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.221/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANST ---------------------- 1. M.PAREETH KUNJU, CHEPPALLY VILAYIL VEEDU PALLISSERRIKKAL MURI,SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE.(DIED). 2. KADEEJA BEEVI, W/O.M.PAREETH KUNJU, CHEPPALLY VILAYIL VEEDU, PALLISSERRIKKAL MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE. 3. NISAMUDHEEN, S/O.M.PAREETH KUNJU, CHEPPALLY VILAYIL VEEDU, PALLISSERRIKKAL MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE. 4. FOUSIA, D/O.M.PAREETH KUNJU, AWAD MANZIL VELINALLOOR, OYOOR. 5. NASEEMA, D/O.M.PAREETH KUNJU, CHEPPALLY VILAYIL VEEDU, PALLISSERRIKKAL MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.2986/2008 IN L.A.A. NO.1331/2008 DISMISSED 31.7.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 1331 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to the acquisition of 08.40 Ares of land for the purposes of K.I.P. pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 25.11.1985. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,774/- per Are. Before the reference court the respondents claimants relied on Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 was discarded by the reference court and, in my opinion, for valid reasons. Nevertheless, the learned judge proceeded to enhance the land value by 50% of the value given by the land acquisition officer. It appears that the reference court was impressed by the oral evidence which was given by AW1 . Aw1 would state in his evidence that his property was situated very near to Government offices factories, banks, commercial establishments, schools, shopping complex, Railway Station, temples, mosques, churches etc. It was also stated by AW1 that his property was having commercial potentialities. It appears that there was no effective L.A.A. No.1331/2008 2 cross examination on the testimony given by AW1. That should be why the learned subordinate judge refers to the evidence of AW1 as convincing evidence regarding “the immense potential value of the land” and goes on to award 50% enhancement. It appears that the learned subordinate judge missed a vital aspect. The acquired property did not have road frontage at all. I am at a loss to understand how a property which was not having road frontage at all would have commercial potentiality. May be it is true that the property is situated near to commercial establishments. But in order to say that the property is having commercial potentiality, the property should be capable of being used for commercial purposes. 2. Notwithstanding my disagreement expressed above with the finding of the learned subordinate judge that the acquired property was having commercial potentiality, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment. After all, the stakes involved in the appeal is very low. Moreover it is seen that the respondents did not adduce any counter evidence at all and as already indicated, there was no effective cross examination of AW1. L.A.A. No.1331/2008 3 For all the above reasons the appeal will stand dismissed. But it is made clear that neither the judgment of the reference court nor this judgment confirming the same will be quoted as a precedent in any other case including applications under Section 28A. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk