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. 249 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.340/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.2 ------------------------------- MEENADAN GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEENADAN, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & STATE ----------------------------- 1. ANNAMMA EAPEN, CHUNDAMANNIL, MEENADAN VILLAGE, MEENADAN P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI 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. 249 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Jose Pallattukaran addressed me strenuously and persuasively on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, I am not persuaded to hold that the judgment of the reference court under appeal warrants interference. The acquisition was for widening a Panchayat road at the instance of the appellant Panchayat who were the second respondent before the reference court. The awarding officer granted land value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Are in this acquisition which was pursuant to a section 4(1) notification dated 8-7-1998. The evidence before the reference court consisted mainly of Exts.A2, A3 and AW1 on the side of the first respondent claimant and Exts.R1, R2 and RW1 on the side of the State and the appellant Panchayat. Apart from that there was Ext.C1 Commissioner's report and Ext.C1(a) plan. Ext.A2 was a pre-notification document in relation to six cents of land purchased by the local merchants union. That document revealed land value of LAA.No.249/07 2 Rs. 15,000/- per cent. Ext.A3 was a post notification document and that document revealed land value of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciating the evidence did not become inclined to rely on Exts.A2 and A3 except for the purpose of understanding the general trend in the value of the land in the area. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the oral evidence of AW1 and also on Ext.C1 Commissioner's report. Commissioner had recommended land value of Rs. 22,000/- per Are. Though the Commissioner's report was accepted completely in the matter of controversy between the parties as to the extent of the property, learned Judge did not accept the Commissioner's recommendations regarding land value in full. Applying the Rule of thumb and the information which could be discerned regarding the market value of the property from Exts.A2 and A3 learned Judge granted Rs. 6000/- per Are as enhanced land value. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and having re-appreciated the data emerging from the evidence which was on record, I feel that the approach of the learned LAA.No.249/07 3 Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable. According to me, learned Subordinate Judge has arrived at a reasonable estimate as to what could have been the market value of the land in question payable by a willing seller to a willing purchaser. The appeal will stand dismissed inlimine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.249/07 4