High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Kundil Veettil Subramanian on 25 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Kundil Veettil Subramanian on 25 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 74 of 2008()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KUNDIL VEETTIL SUBRAMANIAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.KHALID

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :25/05/2009

 O R D E R
          PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                      ------------------------
                      L.A.A.No.74 OF 2008
                      ------------------------

              Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

This case pertains to acquisition of land in Muzhappilangad

Village for the construction of rail over bridge. Relevant Section

4(1) notification was on 26/3/2001. The land value under the

impugned judgment was increased by 75% i.e. 10,000/- to

17,500/- per cent. Value of the structure was increased by 30%.

For the value of structure the claim of the respondents was much

more. The respondents relied on the commission report in a suit

which he had filed. That commission report was not relied on by

the reference court. Nevertheless, the court became inclined to

grant 30% enhancement on the structure value taking into

account the circumstance that it was PWD schedule of rates

which had been adopted and the PWD itself tenders its work

even above its own rates. As for land value, the court did not

place complete reliance on any of the documents. However,

market value reflected in the document was also taken into

L.A.A..No.74/2008 2

account. So also the items relating to the importance of the

locality and its nearness to the Thalassery Town are all taken

into account. After all, determination of the market value in the

land acquisition case itself involved certain amount of guess

work. In the instant case, we find that the guess work made by

the learned Subordinate Judge was founded, to some extent,

on the evidence which came on record. It is more or less the

correct value of the land at the relevant time which had been

arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. There is no room

for interference.

The appeal will stand dismissed.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk