IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 87 of 2001(B) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CMCP.3/2001 LAR.168/1989 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: ----------- ANTONY VARGHESE, CHERUTHAYYIL, THARAVAKKAD, KATTOOR - MARARIKULAM, SHERTALLAI TALUK. ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 87 OF 2001 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal was filed as an indigent person by the claimant in L.A.R. No.168/1998 on the files of the the Alapuzha Sub Court. The L.A.R. case pertains to the acquisition of 12.39 ares of land in Survy Nos.24/6C6, 6C8, 6C5 in Mararikulam South Village for the purpose of drawing the Alleppey - Kayamkulam Railway line pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) on 26/7/1984. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,499/- per Are. Before the reference court, the appellant produced Exts.A1 and A2 documents apart from examining himself as AW1. The learned Subordinate Judge was not impressed by the oral evidence of AW1. The judge did not became inclined to accept A1 and A2 since there was no evidence regarding the comparability of property covered by A1 and A2 with the acquired properties. 2. I have heard Sri.Dr.P.S.Krishna Pillai, the learned L.A.A..No.87/2001 2 counsel for the appellant and Smt. Latha Thankkappan, the learned Government Pleader. Dr.Krishna Pillai would address me strenuously on all the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. He submitted that the court below went wrong in not relying on Exts.A1 and A2. He drew my attention to the Ground No.'C' in the appeal memorandum which is to the effect that the court below ought to have relied on the judgment of the same court in L.A.R. 109/1989. Sri.Krishna Pillai submited that L.A.R. No.109/1989 pertained to the very same acquisition and was a case where the Land Acquisition Officer has granted the same value to the party therein. As directed by me, the learned counsel would place before me a copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No.109/1989. It is seen on going through that judgment that the acquisition in that judgment is of property in the same village and is covered by the very same notification. It is also seen that the Acquisition officer had granted the same value as was granted to the party in this case. 3. Having regard to the principles underlying in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, I feel that the judgment in L.A.R. 109/1989 has considerable probative value. The judgment in L.A.A..No.87/2001 3 L.A.R. No.109/1989 is accepted as evidence in this appeal. Invoking the powers under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Adopting the valuation made in L.A.R. No.109/1989, the value of the acquired properties in this appeal is refixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per cent. This means that the appellant will be entitled for enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.2,441/- per Are. It is decreed accordingly. The appeal is allowed as above. But in the circumstances, parties will suffer their cost through out. It is needless to mention that appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. . (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk 'L.A.R. No. 168/1998' occurring in the 2nd line of the judgment dated 21/08/2008 in L.A.A. 87/2001 is corrected and substituted as "L.A.R. No.168/1989" vide order dated 23/12/2011 in I.A. No.3073/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) L.A.A..No.87/2001 4 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 87 OF 2001 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 21ST AUGUST 2008