High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Chacko Varghese on 26 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Chacko Varghese on 26 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 1042 of 2009()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHACKO VARGHESE, S/O.KADAVIL KOCHU
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHERLY, W/O.CHACKO VARGHESE,

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, INFOPARKS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :26/03/2010

 O R D E R
     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
           ------------------------------------------
                   LAA. No. 1042 of 2009
           -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010

                       J U D G M E N T

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

This appeal filed by the Government pertains to

acquisition of land in Kakkanad Village for the purpose of

expansion of the Info Park. The acquisition was pursuant to

Section 4(1) notification published on 18-7-2005. The land

acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of

Rs.1,59,600/- per Are. Before the reference court the

evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A5, R1 to R5, AW-1, RW-1

and RW-2 and commission report C-1 and C1(a)

Commissioner’s sketch. The court below on evaluating the

evidence and particularly Ext.A2 sale deed re-fixed the land

value at Rs.3,40,092/- per Are. Even though several

grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the

reference court and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Govt. Pleader

addressed us on the basis of those grounds and he was ably

– 2 –

supported by Sri.P.A. Ahammed, learned counsel for the

requisitioning authority, we are not persuaded to hold that

the market value fixed by the court below is excessive.

According to us, the finding entered by the learned

Subordinate Judge regarding the market value is founded on

legal evidence available on record. We don’t find warrant

for interference. Appeal is dismissed.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
ksv/-