IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 LA.App..No. 194 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.172/2005 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA NH-I, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH(B)DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ RABIYA BEEVI, D/O.AHAMMED, THARAKANDATHIL, PONEKKARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH KOCHI-26. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 194 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Despite the extensive submissions of the learned Government Pleader, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment warrants interference by this court. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Edappaly North Village for the purpose of widening of NH 17. Relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 14/1/2005. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,01,860/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of oral testimonies of Aws 1 and2 and Exts.A1 to A4, apart from the commissioner's reports Ext.C1 and C1(a) on the side of the claimant. On the side of the Government there was no counter oral evidence and the evidence consisted only of Exts.R1 Notes on award and R12 copy of Mahazar. The learned Subordinate Judge found, on the basis of the evidence including the commissioner's reports, that the acquired property was by the side of NH-17 and was abutting a Corporation road also. It L.A.A..No.194/2009 2 was noticed that the property was having nearness to various important institutions. The learned Judge did not rely on any particular document to grant enhancement. But, the learned Judge arrived at the market value making guess work relying on the totality of the evidence which came on record. The approach of the learned Judge, in our opinion is justified and reasonable. In our view, it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk