IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 LA.App..No. 252 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.121/2005 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ATHIRA, KEEZHALLUR, KOTHERI, P.O. MATTANNUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WSP DIVISION, KWA, KANNUR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 252 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We are not inclined to admit this appeal, which pertains to acquisition of land in Pazhassi Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 3/6/2002 for the purpose of LIC aided Water Supply Scheme for the Kerala Water Authority. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5817.81 per cent. The reference court enhanced the same to Rs.15,000/- per cent. The respondent state did not adduce any counter oral evidence before the court below. The evidence on the side of the claimant consisted of claimant's own oral testimony as AW1, Ext.A1 certified copy of a sale document, Ext.A2 certified copy of the judgment of the court below in another case and Ext.X1 report submitted by an advocate commissioner on the basis of a local inspection. The evidence on the side of the Government consisted of only the basis document and papers relating to the award file. The reference court noticed that Exts.A1 and A2 L.A.A.No.252/2009 2 properties were having direct frontage of either a State Highway or a very important public road unlike the acquired property which was having an access of an unimportant road. At the same time, the learned Judge found that it was not safe to place reliance on Ext.B1 document since Ext.B1 property did not have any road access at all. Though reliance was not placed on Exts.A1 and A2 completely, the learned Judge relied on those documents to find that in Mattannur area during the relevant period, the land value was on the increase. 2. We are informed that no appeal has been preferred by the Government against the judgment in L.A.R. Nos.259/2005, which is also covered by the impugned common judgment. The learned Government Pleader submits that appeal is being drafted against the judgment in L.AR. No.259/2005. However, having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the findings of the learned Judge are based on the evidence which is available on record and are justified by a preponderance of probabilities. It is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Judge. We do not find any warrant for interference. L.A.A.No.252/2009 3 This appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk