IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 1092 of 2008 ----------------------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09/11/2007 IN LAR.NO.48/2001 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM] .................... APPELLANT/ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.2: ---------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (P & A). BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN, SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA, SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & FIRST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHASKARAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARUKAYIL PADINJATTETHIL, PONMANA MURI, PONMANA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: L.A.A. NO.1092/2008: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2418/2008 IN L.A.A. NO.1092/2008 DISMISSED SD/- PIUS. C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE, 29/06/2011. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.1092 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is by the requisitioning authority. The property was in Panmna Village. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 5.8.1997. The L.A.O. had categorised the properties under acquisition into two categories based on nearness to the main road. For the superior category, the L.A.O. awarded Rs.13,294/- per Are and for the other category, he awarded Rs.10,769/- per Are. The reference court evaluated the evidence which came on record and under the impugned judgment refixed the land value at 45% above the rate granted by the L.A.O. Even though several appealing grounds have been raised and serious submissions were addressed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant based on those grounds, having gone through the impugned judgment and having kept in mind the market value of the land in the locality (based on our findings in other acquisition cases in the area), we LAA 1092/08 2 feel that the rate presently fixed by the court below cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 1092/08 3