IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 324 of 2004(A) -------------------------- LAR.93/2000 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE PROJECT OFFICER (OECF), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS 1,3 & 4: ----------------------------------------------- 1. PANDALOOR MARY, W/O. PANDALOOR JOHN. 2. JOSEPH JOHN. 3. SUNIL JOHN. 4. SANOOP SYRIAC, VAYAKKARA DESOM, NEAR G.U.P. SCHOOL, VAYAKKADA, SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), OECF, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 TO 4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.324 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Sri.M.Dinesh, standing counsel for the appellant Water Authority has addressed us very persuasively, we are not inclined to interfere with the refixation of land value by the reference court under the impugned judgment. The acquisition was for laying pipeline for Pattuvam Water Supply Scheme of the Kerala Water Authority. The property was in Sreekandapuram village. The Section 4(1) notification was published on 28-03-1998. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 3,560/- per cent. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted mainly of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds and report of the Advocate Commissioner. Ext.A1 revealed a centage value of Rs. 8160/-. Ext.A2 revealed an even higher value. It was noticed by the court below that Exts.A1 and A2 were post notification documents. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that the acquired property which was enjoying direct frontage of a straight highway was superior to Exts.A1 and A2 property. The court below actually relied on Ext.A1 despite the same being a post notification document. This was because it was recited in Ext.A1 that LAA.No.324/04 2 Ext.A1 was preceded by an agreement for sale prior to the Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A1 was executed in favour of a congregation of nuns and it involves a fairly large extent of 3 Ares and 75 cents of land. Ext.A2 property was purchased by Rubco and it is in respect of 22 cents of land. According to us, the court below was justified in relying on Ext.A1 taking into account the agreement for sale executed prior to Section4(1) notification. The correct market value came to be reflected in Ext.A1 obviously for the reason that the document was being executed in favour of a congregation of nuns and the consideration was being paid by them from out of remittances received from some foreign countries. On going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the evidence has been correctly appreciated by the learned Subordinate Judge and it is more or less the correct market value of the acquired property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed. But in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. LAA.No.324/04 3