IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 105 of 2009 ------------------------- LAR.198/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NH-1,KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU RESPONDENT: --------------- C.T.MUSTHAFA, C.T.HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA CALICUT. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== L.A.A. NO. 105 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. We are not inclined to admit this appeal filed by the Government pertaining to acquisition for the purpose of straightening the sharp curve at Muthalakkulam – Moideenpally Junction within the area of Kozhikode Corporation pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 26-11-1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.41,851/- per cent relying on a basis document which was on good reasons ignored by the Reference Court. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of Exts.A1, copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.308/1997 which has attained finality. Ext.A2 is a copy of the sale deed dated 12-3-1999 and the oral testimony of AW1 on the side of the claimant. Apart from that, Commissioner's report, Exts.C1 to C3 were also there. Significantly there was no LAA.105/2009 2 counter evidence at all adduced by the Government, though refixation of the land value at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per cent relying on Ext.A1 was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Further evidence adduced by the claimant pursuant to remand consisted mainly Ext.A2 sale deed and Exts.C1 to C3 commissioner's report. Ext.C2 reveals the centage value as high as Rs. 5 lakh. Exts.C1 to C3 commissioner's reports were to the effect that the acquired property was comparable to Ext.A2. In fact, in one of the reports it was stated that the acquired property and Ext.A2 property were situated opposite to each other. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to accept the commissioner's reports. What the learned Sub Judge has virtually done is to grant enhancement based on Ext.A1 itself. Ext.A1 was in respect of another acquisition pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. When Ext.A1 is certainly a relevant judgment and Ext.A1 has attained finality that is a matter of moment. The property is admittedly situated very near to Muthalakkulam – LAA.105/2009 3 Moideenpally Junction which is undoubtedly a very important Junction within the area of Kozhikode Corporation. Having gone through the judgment under appeal, we are of the view that the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot by any standards be described as exorbitant. It appears that it is more or less the correct value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We do not find any reason warranting interference and hence the appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks. LAA.105/2009 4