IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1136 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.50/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, ROAD SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ---------------------------- VISHNU, V.S.VILLA, L.M.S.JUNCTION, ATTINGAL. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2524 OF 2008 IN LAA NO.1136 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 3.7.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1136 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal pertains to acquisition of 0.65 ares of land in Varkala Village for the construction of railway under bridge at Varkala pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 12.7.1999. The awarding officer had categorised the land under acquisition in category B, i.e., properties having frontage of Varkala-Kadakkavoor road and had awarded land value of Rs.1,20,151/- per are. The claimant relied mainly on Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.C1 Commissioner's report. Ext.A1 sale deed reveals a much higher land value. But the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1 for the reason that Ext.A1 related to a property which has having direct frontage of Varkala-Kallambalam road, i.e. properties categorised in A for which, land value at the rate of Rs.1,38,174/- had been awarded. The learned Subordinate Judge in fact relied on Ext.C1 Commissioner's report to find that awarding officer was justified in not including the properties in that category. Ultimately what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to grant a nominal increase of 20% considering the fact that the acquired property was situated at a distance of only 200 metres away from the LAA No.1136/08 - 2 - Varkala Maithanam, said to be the commercial nerve centre of the town. In short the learned Subordinate Judge has applied the rule of thumb. In my opinion the application of rule of thumb for granting the nominal increase of 20% was quite reasonable. The challenge against the impugned judgment will fail and the appeal will stand dismissed in limine. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE