IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 1658 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.191/2004 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 --------------------------------------- THE SPL. TAHSILDAR, LA, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENT NO.2 ------------------------------------------ 1. V.N.RAJENDRAKUMAR, PRATAB, PLOT NO.V-6, 3RD, MAIN ROAD, POENY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-58. (BY P/A HOLDER P.JYOTHI) 2. P.JYOTHI, W/O. RAJENDRAKUMAR, PRATAB, PLOT NO.V-6, 3RD, MAIN ROAD, POENY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-58. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT, KANNUR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1658 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though the Government Pleader has addressed me very persuasively, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. The appeal pertains to acquisition of 0.01519 hectares of land in Chittariparamba town pursuant to notification under Section 4 (1) dated 9/6/2000 for the construction of telephone exchange. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.3,527/- per cent which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.7,500/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 26/10/1996 (about four years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification), testimony of AW-1 claimant and AW-2, an advocate commissioner who had been deputed to inspect the acquired property as well as the property covered by Ext.A1 and also to compare these properties. The case of the respondents was that taking into account the passage of four years time, the acquired property should have been give much higher value than the value of Rs.7500/- seen L.A.R.No.1658/2008 2 paid under Ext.A1. The ground, which is prominently raised by the Government, is that there was no justification for not relying on the basis document which was in respect of a property situated at a distance of just 10 metres from the acquired property. It is true that the Advocate commissioner also found that the basis land is situated at the distance of 10 metres from the acquired property. But, it is seen that the Government did not produce the basis document. The Government did not adduce any other evidence in support of the Government's contention that the land value fixed by the awarding officer is the market value which prevailed on the relevant dates. 2. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court, I am of the view that the learned Judge has arrived at findings on the basis of whatever evidence was available before him. Ext.A1 property was a property which did not have any road frontage at all. Despite the request of the respondents for giving additions on account of the passage of time, the court did not become incline to give any additions. This case was decided by the learned Judge by a common judgment in L.A.R. No. 191/2004, which was supported by L.A.R. No.190/2004. It is L.A.R.No.1658/2008 3 reported that the judgment in L.A.R. No.190/2004 has become final in the sense that the Government did not prefer any appeal against that judgment. For both the above reasons, this appeal will stand dismissed in limine. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk