IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 LA.App..No. 511 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.95/1995 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT. ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS. ----------------------- R.JAYASREE, D/O.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, JAYA BHAVAN, VELLOORKUNNAM KARA, VELLOORKKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL SRI.P.T.ARUNKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.511 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.1047/2004 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. C.M.Appln.No.1047/2004: This is a petition to condone the delay of 745 days in filing the appeal. 2. On merits it is seen that this is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.95/1995 on the files of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The acquisition is for the purpose of construction of a water tank. The section 4(1) notification is dated 10- 8-1993. The property is situated in Velloorkunnam Village. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.11,115/- per Are. The reference court has granted a further enhancement to the tune of Rs.8,885/- per Are. The claimant produced Exts.A1 to A4 documents and also took out a Commission. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and the rough sketch submitted by the Advocate Commission. AWs.1 to 5 were also examined on the side of the claimant. Exts.A1 and A2 were executed admittedly prior to the notification. However, it was found that the properties are not similar as the acquired property is not having the same advantage as that of Exts.A1 and A2. But it was found that Exts.A1 and A2 are bona fide L.A.A.No.511 of 2004 -:2:- transactions in respect of properties lying near to the acquired property. The transaction is on 31-3-1992 and the Section 4(1) notification is dated 10-8-1993. In the absence of any documents so as to find out the actual land value, the reference court has placed some reliance on Exts.A1 and A2. In view of the comparative disadvantages and dissimilarities of the acquired property with that of Exts.A1 and A2, it is seen that only 58% of the value of Exts.A1 and A2 is taken for the purpose of fixation of land value. In the absence of any contra evidence on the part of the land acquisition authority, we find that the court has only resorted to the accepted principle of fixation of actual market value of the acquired land with reference to the evidence available on record. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal and the petition to condone the delay are dismissed. I.A.Nos.2541/2004 and 1528/2005 are also dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- L.A.A.No.511 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.1047/2004 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st May, 2008