IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 958 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.377/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT: ---------------------------- MUHMMED KUNJU PATHUMMA KUNJU, KOTTUTHARAYIL PULIYOOR VANCHI THEKKEMMURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2164 OF 2008 IN LAA NO.958 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 2.9.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.958 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 2nd September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 2.05 ares of land in Survey No.304/1 & 2 of Kallelibhagom Village acquired for the purpose of construction of Godown for F.C.I. at Karunagappally pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 3.5.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of Ext.B1 awarded land value at the rate of Rs.9317/- per are. Before the reference court the evidence on the side of the claimant-respondent consisted of Ext.A1, copy of the sale deed dated 15.10.1993 in respect of 15 cents of land in Kallelibhagam village - the very same village and Ext.A2, copy of the application submitted before the District Collector seeking deputation of a valuer for revaluing the building which stood on the acquired property. Apart from the claimant's oral evidence as P.W.1, the Government did not adduce any counter oral evidence or did not make any endeaver to controvert the evidence of P.W.1. 2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Basant Balaji, learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr.Siraj Karoly, counsel for the respondent-claimant. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed and L.A.A.No.958/08 - 2 - having gone through the judgment of the reference court, I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the reference court. Ext.A1 as already stated is a document of sale executed on 15.10.1993, several months prior to relevant Section 4(1) notification in respect of the properties situated in the very same village. The evidence of P.W.1 that the acquired property and Ext.A1 property are situated adjacent to each other was not challenged. Of course, for comparability of Ext.A1 and the acquired property the reference court had only the oral testimony of P.W.1. But at the same time it should be noticed that the Government did not bother to adduce even formal counter evidence. Having gone through the judgment, I feel that the learned Subordinate Judge arrived at a reasonable estimate of market value of the acquired property from the point of view of a willing purchaser who purchases from a willing seller. The challenge against the judgment and decree under appeal fails and the appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE