IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 24TH MAGHA 1928 LA.App..No. 298 of 2005(D) -------------------------- LAR.136/2002 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ. RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS: ----------------------- N.V.VENUGOPALAN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.T.JAYALAKSHMI, KELAPPA NILAYAM, P.O. ERANHOLOI, CHONADAM, ERANHILI, CHONADAM, ERANHOLI. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SRI.ANOOP U.R. SRIR.AZAD BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.811/05 IN LAA.298/05 DISMISSED 13.2.2007. SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.298 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th February, 2007. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.136/02 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery. The acquisition is for Thalassery-Mahe bypass. The extent involved is 2.35 Ares. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of 24,427/- per cent and the reference court enhanced the land value to Rs.43,225/- per cent. The claimant produced Exts.A1 to A5 documents and AW1 to AW3 were examined. A Commission was also taken and the report and the sketches were marked as Exts.X1, X1(a) and X1(b). According to the learned Government Pleader, in view of the finding of the reference court that the properties covered by Exts.A1 to A3 are not similar to the acquired land, the enhancement should not have been made. We are afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. It is true that the Commissioner has not specifically reported whether the lands covered by Exts.A2 and A3 are similar and similarly situated as the acquired land. But it has come out in evidence that the LAA NO.298/06 2 acquired property is very near to the Thalassery Municipality. The property covered by Ext.A2 is a wet land according to the Commissioner, where the assignment of 12 cents is for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. It has also come out in evidence that the acquired property is a garden land with a residential building. On the basis of such evidence only, a reasonable fixation has been made by the reference court, mainly based on Ext.A2. The nominal enhancement given to the structures is also based on proper evidence and is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ ---------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 13th February, 2007.