IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 131 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.147/2002 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ---------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, NH, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE LAR: --------------------------------------------------- 1. SIMON VARGHESE, 43/772, B.PAUL ABRO ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 18. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN FOR R1 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ LA.A.No.131 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We do not find any ground for admitting this appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of Kannur Power Project. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 5/9/1997. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4991/- per cent for garden land and Rs.707/- per cent for Kaipad. The evidence before the reference court consisted mainly of Exts.A1 to A3. These documents revealed land value of Rs.60,000/-, 30,000/ and about 15,000/- per cent respectively. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sub Judge was proper. The learned Judge relying ultimately on Exts.A1 to A3 refixed the value of garden land at Rs.5,500/- per cent and those of Kaipad at Rs.1500/- per cent. According to us, the approach of the learned Sub Judge was quite reasonable and it is more or less the correct market value of the property which has L.A.A..No.131/2008 2 been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. In fact, the learned Subordinate Judge had before him commission report Ext.X-1 and plan Ext.X-1A (a) submitted by an advocate commissioner on the basis of local inspection of the properties. Above all there was no counter evidence at all on the side of the Government. For all these reasons, appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk