IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 1945 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.3/1990 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:- ------------------------------------ N.MURALEEDHARAN, SREENARAYANA SADANAM,NAKRAMKONATHU MURI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 1945 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 6.60 Ares of land for the purposes of the Kerala Water Authority pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 13-11-1981. The property was in Kadakkal village near to Kottarakkara town. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 1890/- per Are relying on the basis document. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed and the oral testimonies of AWs 1 and 2 on the side of the claimant respondent. The counter evidence on the side of the appellant Government consisted of Ext.R1 L.A. file only. No counter evidence was adduced by the Government. Ext.A1 was duly proved on the side of the respondents. Ext.A1 related to a property situated just 150 meters away from the acquired properties. The acquired property unlike Ext.A1 property was situated on a junction. Ext.A1 reflected land value of Rs. 1666/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and LAA.No.1945/08 2 concluded that there was justification for giving slight increase upon the value reflected by ExtA1 since the acquired property was situated on a junction. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court, I am of the view that the approach of the court below cannot be said to be unreasonable. In my opinion, it is more or less a correct estimate of the market value, which would have been paid to a willing seller by a willing purchaser, that has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed inlimine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1945/08 2