IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 12 of 2009() ------------------------ LAR.93/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDL.LA. UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS: --------------- K.SAROJAM, PONNARAKADAVEEDU PRASANTH NAGAR, THURUVIKKAL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 12 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 0.40 Ares of land in Sy.No.720/20 of Cheruvakkal Village at Thiruvananthapuram for the construction of 4 lane road for the Public Works Department. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 15/5/2003. The land acquisition officer, relying on the basis document, fixed the land value at Rs.98,861/- per Are. Before the reference court, on the side of the claimant the evidence consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed No.529/01 dated 25/2/2001 and oral testimony of AW1. On the side of the appellant respondent, the same consisted of Ext.R1, copy of Mahazar, Ext.R2 copy of the detailed valuation statement , Ext.R3 field measurement sketch and Ext.R4 Notes to award. There was absolutely no counter or oral evidence to the evidence adduced by the claimant. Ext.A1 was executed by L.A.A..No.12/2009 2 Sri.K.P.P.Nambiar in favour of one Sri.Shaji Thomas and the same is related to 11 cents of land in the same village. AW1 testified that Ext.A1 property and the acquired property were similar and situated in proximity to each other. 2. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court, we are of the view that the court below was justified in relying on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 reveals land value of Rs.70,000/- per cent only and what has been awarded by the court under the impugned judgment is slightly more. That increase is also justified when we take into account the fact that Ext.A1 was executed 27 months prior to the date of Section 4 (1) notification. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk