IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1236 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.16/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT --------------------- DEVADASAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 61, VARUVILA VEEDU, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, PANAYARA P.O., CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY // THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 1236 OF 2008 & C.M. APPLICATION NO. 1282 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. C.M. Application No.1282 of 2008 is an application to condone the delay of 769 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is filed by the State of Kerala against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2005 in L.A.R. No.16 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The extent of property acquired is 19.60 Ares. Acquisition is for the purpose of construction of a bridge across Kallada river. Section 4(1) notification is dated 1.1.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.10,455/- per Are as against a claim of Rs.60,000/- per cent. The case of the claimant is that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 50 metres west of Panayara junction and surrounded by many public institutions. He contended that the land value was fixed without taking into consideration the importance of the locality and the potentiality of the land. It is also contended that due to the acquisition, the remaining extent of the property was injuriously affected. L.A.A. NO.1236/2008 2 2. The claimant was examined as AW.3. Three other witnesses were examined on the side of the claimant as AWs.1, 2 and 4 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Exts.R1 to R5 were marked on the side of the respondents. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are respectively the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. The claimant claimed land value at the rate covered by the properties in Exts.A1 and A2 which according to him is similar and comparable to the acquired land. Ext.R1 mahazar shows that the acquired property is situated at a distance of 70 metres towards west from Panayara junction on the side of Njekkad-Panayara-Varkala public road. The court below compared the acquired land with the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2 and concluded that the acquired land cannot have the potentiality of the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2. The court below found that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are small plots and fit for construction of commercial building. For the purpose of fixing the market value, the court below considered the land value in Exts.A1 and A2 documents as well as Ext.R3 document and also the time lag between the execution of Ext.R3 document and the date of Section 4(1) notification. On the said basis, the court below found it just and proper to fix land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per Are for the acquired land. We find that the reasons stated by the court below for granting enhancement at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per Are is based on the L.A.A. NO.1236/2008 3 evidence available on record. Regarding the claim for compensation towards injurious affection, the court below rightly rejected the said claim finding that there is no sufficient evidence to grant enhancement for injurious affection. 3. The contention of the appellant that the enhancement granted by the court below is excessive and exorbitant is without any basis. The evidence on record was appreciated by the court below and we find no reason to interfere with the findings entered by the court below. The land value fixed by the court is just, proper and reasonable. We also find that the delay of 769 days in filing the appeal is not properly explained. Therefore, the appeal and the application for condonation of delay are dismissed. I.A. No.2743 of 2008 is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ L.A.A. NO.1236/2008 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. L.A.A. NO. 1236/2008 JUDGMENT 24th July, 2008 L.A.A. NO.1236/2008 5