IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 173 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.67/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------- PERINKOLLANKUZHI MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED, P.O.KUMMINIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.563 OF 2007 IN L.A.A.NO.173 OF 2007 DISMISSED 22.5.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.173 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd May, 2008 JUDGMENT The Government has come in appeal against the judgment and decree of the land acquisition reference court in this case which pertains to acquisition for construction of a diversion road to Kondotty-Tirurangadi road Block No.I at Pallikkal in Malappuram District. The acquisition was in pursuance to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3.3.1997 and the extent involved was only 0.0050 Ares corresponding to 1.2355 cents. The awarding officer relied on Ext.B1 basic document dated 22.4.1994. But the awarding officer did not award the value seen paid as per Ext.B1 but made a cut of 35% on the basis that the property covered by Ext.B1 is superior to acquired property. Neverthless considering the passage of time between the date of execution of Ext.B1 and promulgation of Section 4(1) notification, the awarding officer has allowed an increase of 25% over the value disclosed by Ext.B1 as reduced by 35%. Thus the awarding officer would award land value at the rate of Rs.6554.80 per cent. Before the reference court the evidence consisted of oral testimonies of the respondent and one witness. To support the claim for enhancement L.A.A.No.173/07 - 2 - the respondent relied on mainly on Ext.A3 document which was the copy of a sale document No.1803/94 of S.R.O.Kondotty dated 22.6.1994. Ext.A3 reflected a land value of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The reference court however did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A3. However on an appreciation of the entire evidence which was adduced by the parties including the counter oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-State, the reference court came to the conclusion that the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in making a cut of 35% of the value reflected by the basic document Ext.B1 which even according to the appellant was comparable to a considerable extent to the property in question. When that cut was cancelled, the result was that the land value went upto Rs.10079.78 per cent whereby the reference court approved the action of the land acquisition officer in enhancing the land value by 25% taking into account the passage of 35 months time from the date of the document till the date of notification under Section 4(1). Having gone through the judgment under appeal and having scanned the records which are available, I am of the view that the approach of the reference court cannot be said to be unreasonable by any standards. I do not find any justification for interfering with the enhancement L.A.A.No.173/07 - 3 - granted by the court below. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. But in the circumstances, the parties will bear the costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE