IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 95 of 2007() ------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.203/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.) APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.1 -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) (OECF), KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.II -------------------------------------- 1. T.V.DEVI, W/O.CHANDUKUTTY, MADHAVIPURAM, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER (OECF), KWA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.387/2007 IN LAA NO.95/2007 DISMISSED 3.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 95 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The Government prefers this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Kozhikode in L.A.R. No.203/2001. The case related to the acquisition in Pantheerankavu village within the Calicut city limits for the construction of a water tank for the Kerala Water Authority. The Notification under Section 4 (1) was on 25.5.1998 and the Awarding Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5030/ per cent. Before the Reference Court, the claimant first respondent relied mainly on two documents Exts.A1 and A2. Though Ext.A1 reflected much higher land value, the court below did rely on it and rightly so in my opinion on the reason that the same is a post notification document. Ext.A2 was the other document relied on by the first respondent. That was the document of the year 1994. The learned Judge noticed that the acquired property had direct access from the Mankavu – Kanniparamba road while the property covered by Ext.A2 was situated at a distance of 50 meters away from that road without any direct access. Taking this plus factor for the LAA No.95/2007 2 acquired property into account and also giving allowance for the passage of four years time between the date of the document and the date of Section 4 (1) notification, the learned subordinate judge re fixed the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent. I am of the view that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable and there is no warrant for interference with the re- fixation of the land value by the learned Subordinate Judge. Allowing the claim for injurious affection in part, the learned subordinate judge allowed Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner as compensation on that count also against a much higher claim. I do not find any warrant for interfering with that part of the court award either. Above all, it is brought to my notice by Sri.Jacob Abraham , the learned counsel for the first respondent that the Government did not prefer any appeal against the judgment in L.A.R. No.204/2001, the other case covered by the impugned common judgment. For all the above reasons, the appeal will fail and stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk LAA No.95/2007 3