IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1038 of 2009(D) -------------------------------- LAR.121/2000 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, THALASSERY. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.LEELA W/O. T.T.KUNHIKRISHNAN, P.O.KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR NOW RESIDING AT ANDAKOVVALIL, KUNHIMANGALAM.P.O., KANNUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY PAYYANNUR. ADV. M.SASINDRAN(SC,PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1038 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The state is in appeal against the award of enhanced compensation by the Reference Court for properties which were acquired for the purpose of the Payyannur Municipal Stadium. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6910/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. 2. Having heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader and also those of Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality/the second respondent who was asked to take notice and having gone L. A. A. No.1038 of 2009 -2- through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the market value of the property at the relevant time is a reasonable finding which is founded on evidence which was actually available on record. The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that for the properties which were acquired in the same village for the establishment of the Municipal Fish Market some five years earlier, the court had fixed land value at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per cent. The court noticed some superiority for the properties acquired for fish market and that was why a lesser value of Rs.10,000/- per cent alone was fixed for these properties. But we find that the court has not taken into account the passage of five years time. If that had been taken into account, perhaps the enhancement granted could have been even more. At any rate, we do not find any warrant for L. A. A. No.1038 of 2009 -3- interference with the present re-fixation at Rs.10,000/- per cent. The judgment of this Court in LAA.296/04 is brought to our notice. In that case, properties acquired for the same purpose for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same rate, the re-fixation by the court was at Rs.30,000/- per cent. This Court rightly set aside that judgment and remitted the issue back to the Reference Court. But in the instant case, as already stated, the re-fixation is only at Rs.10,000/- which is quite reasonable. 3. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-