IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 2168 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.437/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT --------------- MOLY KUTTY, W/O. DANIEL, KOLLANTA PADINJATTATHIL, VADAKKUMURI, PORUVAZHY. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 2168 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal preferred by the Government pertains to acquisition of 4.20 Ares of land in Poruvazhy village in Kollam district acquired for the purposes of KIP pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) which was published on 16-09-1981. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 1437/- per Are. The reference court would refix the land value at Rs. 10661/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A3 judgments of the same court in other cases and the oral testimony of PW1, the claimant respondent. Ext.A1 was a judgment relating to acquisition pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification. But the property in Ext.A1 was according to the land acquisition officer slightly superior to the acquired property in this case. What the learned Subordinate Judge has done is to notice that Ext.A1 has attained finality and to give a proportionate increase based on Ext.A1 keeping the ratio maintained by the land acquisition officer between the values of Ext.A1 property and LAA.No. 2168/08 2 acquired property in this case in mind. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court and having heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the approach of the reference court was quite reasonable. Since Ext.A1 has attained finality, the principles underlying under Section 28A have to be kept in mind. Importantly, the reference itself became possible only on the basis of the judgment of this court in O.P.No. 9604/97 by which the reference court was directed to redetermine compensation taking into account Section 28A (3) and Section 18. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No. 2168/08 2