IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 234 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.149/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALJI. RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR : --------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNA PILLAI PARAMESWARAN PILLAI ILANGANOOR VEEDU,KIZHAKKE CHERRI, PERUMON. 2. EASWARI AMMA, SUSEELA DEVI ILANGANOOR VEEDU,KIZHAKKE CHERRI, PERUMON. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R1 & 2 SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.234 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. According to us, the judgment impugned in this appeal does not warrant any interference. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Panayam village for the purpose of railways pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 7/7/1991. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8581/- per Are, which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.19760/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 judgment and Ext.A2 sale deed, apart from the testimony of the claimant as AW-1. Absolutely no counter evidence was adduced on the side of the Government. Ext.A1 was the judgment in respect of a case relating to acquisition of the property in the same village pursuant to a notification which was five years earlier. Though the learned Subordinate Judge has not specifically relied on Ext.A1, we are of the view that Ext.A1 has some relevance since that property was in the same village. What the learned Subordinate Judge has done is to accept the L.A.A.No.234/2008 2 oral testimony of AW-1 and refix the market value at Rs.19,760/- per Are. Even if Ext.A1 is relied on and addition is given for the passage of five years time, the value to be arrived at will be more or less same as the value now fixed by the reference court. 2. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the value fixed by the court below can be approved. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk