IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 LA.App..No. 373 of 2010 ---------------------------- LAR.542/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT 1 IN LAR: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & R2 IN LAR: ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.T.KOSHY, S/O.THOMAS, PALAMOOTTIL VADAKKETHIL CHIRAYIL, MANAKAD MURI, MAVELIKKARA. 2. MUNICIPALITY OF MAVELIKKARA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.373 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We do not find any warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. The property under acquisition was in Mavelikkara village situated in an important area of Mavelikkara Municipal town. The acquisition was for the purpose of widening of the existing approach road to the Municipal Bus Stand-cum-shopping complex at Mavelikkara. The acquisition was pursuant to notification published on 04/02/92. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.29,343,60/- per Are. Before the Reference Court the claimant L. A. A. No.373 of 2010 -2- relied mainly on Exts.A1 and A2. Both of which were pre-notification document. In fact, it became evident that the distance between the acquired property and property covered by Exts.A1 and A2 was only 400 metres. Exts.A1 and A2 were properly proved by AW1 and AW2. As against the above oral evidence there was not even formal counter evidence from the side of the Government. On going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the evidence which came on record has been properly appreciated by the learned Subordinate Judge and that it is more or less the correct market value of the property that has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. What the learned Judge did was to award 90% of the value reflected in Ext.A2 and fix the L. A. A. No.373 of 2010 -3- land value at Rs.77,318/- per Are. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-