IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 699 of 2008(D) -------------------------- APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJ RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT --------------------- M.HUSAIDA BEEVI, W/O. HASSAN RAWTHAR, C/O. VADAKKEKARA-KABEER MANZIL, PARAKULAM, THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., KOLLAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1745/08 IN L.A.A.NO. 699 OF 2008 DISMISSED 10-07-2008 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE , JUDGE /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 699 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 0.19 Ares of land in Survey No. 254/A 37 ( Re.Sy.No. 105/101) of Mundakkal village acquired for the purposes of railways pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 21-01-1993. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 39,860/- per Are. The reference court enhanced the same to Rs. 18275/- per Are. Before the reference court, the evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 -claimant alone. No documentary evidence whatsoever was adduced by the respondent. A reading of the judgment will show that the oral evidence adduced by the claimant was not accepted by the learned subordinate Judge. Learned Subordinate Judge would grant enhancement coming to slightly more than double the rate fixed by the awarding officer purely on guess work. Learned Government Pleader is certainly justified in submitting that the practice of awarding enhancement to this extent purely on guess work without any legal LAA.No.699/08 2 evidence to support the same, should be deprecated. But two circumstances dissuade me from admitting this appeal. First is that the stake involved is too small. It is only Rs. 7679/- . Secondly, the respondent had not adduced even formal counter evidence to the oral evidence adduced by the claimant. I am dismissing the appeal in view of the smallness of the stakes involved in the appeal. Appeal will stand dismissed. However it is made clear that this judgment will not be a precedent for any other cases including other cases relating to the very same section 4(1) notification. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.699/08 2