IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 560 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.10/2002 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT: -------------------- P.P.MATHAI, S/O PAYILI, CHENDAKUNI, MEENAGADI.P.O., S.BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY , DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA NO.I,KRP-BSIP, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.560 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant who is aggrieved by the award of the reference court declining his claim for enhancement. The appellant claimed enhancement of the value of the land acquired and also of the value of improvements which were available on the acquired land. The acquisition was for the purpose of Karappuzha Irrigation Project in Wayanad District pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) dated 18/6/1996. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 8150/- per Are. It is seen that the appellant did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the correct market value of the land at the relevant time was more than the amount awarded by the officer. In fact, he himself conceded in his oral evidence as PW1 that he has not adduced any evidence at all. The same is the position regarding the appellant's claim for value for improvements. He conceded that regarding that claim also he has not adduced any evidence. In fact in cross-examination, it was suggested LAA.No.560/08 2 to him that in the award enquiry he had not raised any specific claims towards value of land or value of improvements. Though he denied the suggestion, it is seen from the claim statement seen in the file that he had not raised any specific claims towards value of land or value of improvements. I have gone through the proceedings paper of the learned Subordinate Judge. It is seen that several opportunities were given to the appellant for adducing evidence. Under these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity about the award of the reference court declining enhancement in compensation to the appellant on the ground that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant for justifying his claim for enhancement. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.560/08 2