IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 931 of 2009 ------------------------- LAR.50/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------- 1. SUKUMARAN,THADATHIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PATTOM THURUTH, MANRO THURUTH,KOLLAM. * ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. *[ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN LAA.931/09 AS PER ORDER DT.26/08/09] SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH, SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 & R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.931 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also those of Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the Standing Counsel for the Railways. 2. In this case, the acquisition was for the doubling of the Railway Line and the properties were situated in the Mandrothuruthu village in Kollam district. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 08/03/91. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,955/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment the same was L. A. A. No.931 of 2009 -2- enhanced to Rs.12,350/- per Are. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment cannot be said to be excessive. The findings regarding market value are based on evidence available on records. We do not find any warrant for interference. 4. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-