IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 348 of 2008(B) ----------------------------- LAR.291/2002 of PRL. SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ......................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHYSON P. MANGUZHA. RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALAN, K.B.NIVAS, CHINGOLI, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KOMALAVALLY, K.B.NIVAS, CHINGOLI. 2. N.T.P.C. LTD., FOR ITS KAYAMKULAM S.T.P.P. ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR FOR R.1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 348 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Alappuzha in LAR 291/02. An area of 1.80 Ares of property comprised in S.No.567/34 of Chingoli village was acquired for the purpose of the approach road. The Land Acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs.7,215/- and it has been enhanced by the Land Acquisition Court to Rs.20,000/- whereby entitling the claimant to have an additional land value at Rs.12,785/- per Are. It is against that decision the State has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the claimant is that the property will fetch a value of Rs.50,000/- to 55,000/- per cent. But the Land Acquisition Court had relied on Ext.A1 judgment for the purpose of arriving at the figure. It is the case of the claimant that the property covered by Ext.A1 is situated 50 mtrs. west of his property. The Land Acquisition Court found that as per L.A.A. 348 OF 2008 -2- Ext.A1 document 18.52 Ares of wet land of Chingoli village was acquired for the same purpose and the Land Acquisition officer fixed the value at Rs.9,365/- and the Land Acquisition Court enhanced it to Rs.25,000/- whereby an additional amount of Rs.15,635/- was awarded. The Land Acquisition Court found that as contended by the claimant the properties are not similar and similarly situated. The property has been treated differently the property acquired is a dry land and even then the Land Acquisition officer has only fixed it at Rs.7,215/-. For the wet land he had fixed the land value at Rs.9,365/- per Are. It has been evident that there was no road frontage for this property. Therefore the Court decided to proceed to fix the matter in comparison with the land value in Ext.A1. The Court held that taking into consideration that the property acquired in the instant case is dry land and even though it is having disadvantages with reference to road access, 80% of the value fixed in Ext.A1 can be granted. It was on that basis the Court fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per Are. So it is on materials the amount has L.A.A. 348 OF 2008 -3- been fixed and enhanced it by Rs.12,785/- per Are. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said decision. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-