IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 202 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.25/2001 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REP. BY THE AREA MANAGER, BSNL (TELECOM), THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- 1. ULAHANNAN, S/O. IYPE, KUMARATHUKUDIYIL, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R2 SRI.T.V.GEORGE FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.202 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Sri.Mathews K.Philip, learned standing counsel for the appellant – requisitioning authority, has addressed us very strenuously, we do not find any warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. The case pertains to acquisition of land at Vannappuram, near Thodupuzha for the establishment of Micro Wave Station for the appellant-BSNL. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 5/12/1996. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.21,691/- per cent. The reference court, on evaluating the evidence which consisted mainly of Exts.A1 sale deed, would refix the land value at Rs.28,233/- per cent. Apart from Ext.A1, there was an oral evidence of Aws 1 & 2 and Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 sketch submitted by the Advocate commissioner. Significantly, there was not even formal counter evidence on the side of the requisitioning authority. There was no counter oral evidence even from the side of the Government. L.A.A..No.202/2006 2 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the market value of the property at the relevant time is founded on evidence and the same is reasonable. According to us, it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence, this appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk