IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 2194 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.127/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- G.RADHAMMA, VADASSERI VADAKKATHIL MANGAD, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L.A.A.No.2194 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court in LAR.No.127/1997 of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. The subject matter of the reference relates to 02.25 Ares of land comprised in Resurvey No.599/19 of Mangad village. The Land Acquisition Court on a consideration of the materials decided to enhance the land value by 60% and awarded compensation accordingly. It is aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. There were two judgments produced as Exts.A1 and A2 wherein the Land Acquisition Court decided to enhance the land value by 124.09 % and it has attained finality. The learned Subordinate Judge was dissatisfied with those judgments on the ground that the court has relied upon the oral evidence to fix such an enhanced value. But, a perusal of the award in this case would reveal that even, according to the learned Sub Judge, there is road : 2 : L.A.A.No.2194 OF 2008 accessibility to the property. The learned Judge held that it can be said to be similar to the land involved in the present reference which comes under category No.4, land having panchayat road frontage. The court also refers to the evidence of AW1 and holds that there is convincing evidence regarding potential value of the land under acquisition on different grounds with specific reference to disclose proximity to important Government offices, schools, colleges, temples, churches, mosques etc. It could not be shattered during cross examination. The court also observed that these facts had not been properly taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing the award. So, the fact that the property involved in this case just like the property involved in regard to the Judgments in Exts.A1 and A2 was having a road frontage and there had been potential value for the property and proximity to important places and so it has to be stated that just like other cases, this is also of a considerable important locality. In all cases one cannot insist that one has to only rely upon the documentary evidence to establish : 3 : L.A.A.No.2194 OF 2008 the case. If the oral evidence tendered by the party stands to reasons and it is acceptable, the court of law is at liberty to accept the same to arrive at a decision. 3. Therefore the observation by the learned Subordinate Judge that Exts.A1 and A2 were decided on the basis of oral evidence and therefore I cannot accept it as not proper. There is a supporting document. The learned Subordinate Judge himself had seen the importance of the locality and the judgments Exts.A1 and A2 have become final for the reason that it has not been challenged at all. 4. Therefore some evidentiary value should have been attached to Exts.A1 and A2 and along with the same, the court should have attached importance to the potentiality of the land including its nearness to the important towns. When such matters are considered, I feel this is a fit case where the enhancement should be by 100% and not by 60% as done by the court below. Therefore, the award under challenge is modified and a direction is given to give the land value at the rate of 100% enhancement with the attended benefits entitled to the claimant under the : 4 : L.A.A.No.2194 OF 2008 provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl