IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 724 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.274/2005 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALATHIL POILAN ASSAINAR, S/O.MOOSAN, 'BATHURAHIMAN' KALLOOR, KEECHERI PO, MATTANNUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WSP DIVISION KWA, KANNUR. ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA FOR R2 SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J -------------------------. L.A.A No.724 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Thalassery in L.A.R.274/05. An extent of 0.0079 hectares of land comprised in R.Sy.No.17/1 of Kolari Village has been acquired and Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,004/-. But the reference court fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent and revised the order. The appellant was examined as AW1 in the case. The court found that the property which is a subject matter of acquisition has got direct access to the tar road. The relied on document Ext.A1 was not accepted for the reason that the said property is just adjacent adjacent to the Mattannur – Kannur main road. The court also relied upon the Commissioner's report to find out that the acquired properties are at residential area near Mattannur-Kannur road and approximately 2 kms. Away from the main junction. The court also found that the property covered under Ext.A2 is of a similar nature and in LAR.88/04, an L.A.A No.724/09 2 amount of Rs.10,000/- per cent has been awarded not merely basing on Ext.A2 but on considering proximity to the Mattanur – town. This cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore, it has also be stated that the property acquired is not having a large extent as well and therefore on that ground also the award does not call for any interference. Therefore, I find that the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.