IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 1253 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.116/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT; ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & ADDL.RESONDENT NO.2 ------------------------------------------- 1. P.RAJAMMA, VADAKKEPULIPRA VEEDU, ATTINKUZHI, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS(KERALA) KARIAVATTOM POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KG SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3120/07 IN L.A.A.NO.1253/07 DISMISSED. 04-06-2008 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE , JUDGE /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.NO.1253 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Delay is condoned. Heard the learned Government Pleader. This case pertains to the acquisition of 5.35 Ares of land for the purposes of Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to Section 4(1) notification on 05/04/1994. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 11812/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence consisted of Ext.A1 document and AW1's (the claimants) oral testimony on the side of the claimants. On the side of the Government it consisted of Exts.R1 to R3 and there was no counter oral evidence. Ext.A1 was a document which revealed a land value of more than Rs. 35,000/- per cent. The court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1 and in my opinion also the court below was justified. However, taking into account the circumstance that after the establishment of the Techno Park, there has been escalation in the land value in the locality what the court below did was to give enhancement by 30% of the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. LAA.No.1253/07 2 The Rule of Thumb has been followed by the court below in this case correctly. I do not find any warrant for interference with the judgment of the learned Judge. Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1253/07 2