IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1431 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.1/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, KAVARATHY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR-HQ), UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,SC,LAKSHADWEE SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- UMMAROADA FATHIMABI, RAHIMATH MANZIL, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1431 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Ibrahim, learned counsel for the respondent claimant. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Kavaratti Island for the department of electricity for the construction of oil storage tank, at Kavaratti. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 18/9/2002 and the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.453.40 per Sq.Mtr. The same was enhanced under the impugned judgment to Rs.888/- per Sq.Mtr. 2. Even though Sri.Radhakrishnan addressed us very strenuously on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, we are not persuaded to hold that enhancement granted by the reference court is unreasonable. The evidence before the reference court consisted inter alia of Exts.A1 to A9 documents L.A.A.No.1431/2007 2 and the oral evidence of CW-1 on the side of the claimant. Counter evidence consisted of the oral evidence of Sub Divisional Officer as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B5 copies of the basis documents and other documents discussed by the awarding officer. Exts.A1 to A3 were all pre notification documents. The enhancement presently granted is, in fact, average of the value revealed in those three documents. The stand taken by the Government before the reference court which is maintained in this court is that Exts.A1 to A3, being documents relating to the property situated beyond one kilometer away from the acquired property, should not have been relied on. That stand, according to us, was rightly repelled by the reference court. Exts.A1 to A3 were certainly relevant documents and the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having adopted average of the value reflected in those documents, which were documents executed in usual course of business, was quite proper. We also feel that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment . L.A.A.No.1431/2007 3 The appeal will stand dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk