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 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 2465 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.66/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. KUMARAN NAIR, RAMASADANAM, CHIRAYINKEEZH, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHANDNI, PALARIVATTOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, TRIVANDRUM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 2465 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Sarkara Village in Chirayinkeezh Taluk pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 23/8/1995. The purpose of acquisition was doubling of the railway line between Kollam and Thiruvananthapauram. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.98,800/- per Are. The reference court relied on Exts.A1 to A6 and the oral testimony of AW1 on the side of the claimant respondent. The evidence on the side of the appellant consisted of Exts.R1 and R6 and oral testimony of RW1. Ext.A4 was the court's judgment in respect of the property in the same village , but acquired under a much earlier notification under Section 4(1). The court below did not place reliance on Ext.A4 on the reason that there was no commission report making a comparative study of Ext.A4 L.A.A..No.2465/2008 2 property and the acquired property and also on the reason that it is not clear whether Ext.A4 has become final. The court below relied on Ext.A3 sale document executed in the year 1995 some four years prior to Section 4(1) notification. It was seen by the court below that Ext.A3 relates to property having an extent of 4 ½ cents only. 2. Considering the smallness of the plot covered by Ext.A3, what the court below did was to rely on Ext.A3 for the purpose of determining the land value, but without giving any addition for the passage of four year's time. The court below, thus refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per cent. It is now brought to our notice that Ext.A4 has attained finality. 3. Having gone through the judgment under appeal and having considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that learned subordinate judgment has arrived at more or less correct findings as to the market value of the acquired property as on the relevant date of the Section 4 (1) notification. The findings, in our opinion, are reasonable and founded on evidence. Moreover, we find that the total stakes involved in the appeal is not much. L.A.A..No.2465/2008 3 For all the above reasons, this appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk