IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 LA.App.No.879 of 2006 ----------------------------- LAR.187/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT/RESPONDENT IN THE LAR: ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS IN THE LAR: ------------------------------ K.K.ABDULLAH, S/O.KOCHUNNI, KALLIKUZHIYIL, MANJALI. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- L.A.A. No. 879 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. This is an appeal filed by the State aggrieved by the fixation of land value by the reference court in L.A.R.No.187/2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur. Acquisition is for the purpose of NH 17-Paravur-Manjali Bridge. 2. The extent involved is 7.60 Ares. The property is situated in Karumalloor village. Section 4(1) notification is dated 27.03.1998. Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.16,099/- per Are and the reference court fixed it at Rs.25,758/- per Are. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the State. 3. The claimant had a case for Rs.50,000/- per cent. Reliance was placed on Exhibit A3 sale deed executed in the year 1997. The reference court found that the land covered by Exhibit A3 was not proved to be similar and similarly situated. However, it was found that the acquired land had road access. It was also noted that though there was no evidence available L.A.A. No. 879/06 2 regarding the similarity and comparability of the acquired land, it was in evidence from the files of the Land Acquisition Officer that Exhibit A3 property was also acquired for the very same purpose and it was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of building valuation. Land Acquisition Officer rejected the document for the only reason that the same was executed between close relatives. 4. The reference court, on an overall assessment of the facts including location of the acquired property, found it just and proper to enhance the land value by 60% over and above the value given by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted before us that in several cases, this Court has sustained enhancement upto 60% in the case of acquisition for N.H.17. 5. As far as the value of the structure is concerned, it has come out in evidence that the valuation is based on PWD rate. It was submitted before us that in connected cases, this Court had granted 45% enhancement for the value of the structures. The claim is made based on PWD rate and the market rate of the building materials, and also taking note of the fact that supervision charges are not included in the detailed valuation L.A.A. No. 879/06 3 statement. In the absence of any contra evidence, the reference court found it just and proper to grant such enhancement to the tune of 45%, though the expert Engineer had recommended 60% enhancement. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment under appeal since the same is based on evidence available on record and since there is no contra evidence. Thus there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE smp L.A.A. No. 879/06 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. No. 879 OF 2006 J U D G M E N T 14.07.2008