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 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No.557 of 2009 (D) --------------------------------- LAR.90/2007 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT: -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPEPCIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOYILANDY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KATCHERIKANDY BHASKARAN, THOTTOLITHAZHA KARAYIL HOUSE, ATHOLI. 2. KATCHERIKANDY ROHINI, THOTTOLITHAZHA- KARAYIL HOUSE,ATHOLI. 3. KATCHERIKANDY SHINI,THOTTOLITHAZHA KARAYIL HOUSE, ATHOLI. 4. KATCHERIKANDY SHEENA, THOTTOLITHAZHA KARAYIL HOUSE, ATHOLI. 5. KATCHERIKANDY SHIJITH,THOTTOLITHAZHA- KARAYIL HOUSE, ATHOLI. 6. VACKKUKANDIYIL PERACHI, THOTTOLITHAZHA KARAYIL HOUSE, ATHOLI. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.557 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We do not find any ground to admit this appeal preferred by the Government. The acquisition was for the construction of bridge and approach road at Kuniyil Kadavu pursuant to Section 4(1) notification which was published on 27/02/04. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value of Rs.5,797.66/- per cent. The Reference Court re-fixed the land value at Rs.16,000/- per cent. Even though Sri.P.K.Babu, Senior Government Pleader would assail the judgment of the Reference Court on various grounds, we are of the view that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant L. A. A. No.557 of 2009 -2- time which has been arrived at by the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge rightly rejected the basis document as well as the documents Exts.A1 to A3. But the learned Sub Judge noticed that the document in the award which was discussed as item No.5 in respect of property situated in the same village which had been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer was a reliable document and that even RW1 has no reason to offer as to why that document was not relied on. The present value fixed by the court below is on the basis of that document which could have been relied on even in the absence of its copy since the document is discussed in the notes to award. According to us, there is no warrant L. A. A. No.557 of 2009 -3- for interference. This appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-