High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala Rep.By The Special vs Victoria J. on 28 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Rep.By The Special vs Victoria J. on 28 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 956 of 2009(D)


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

                        Vs



1. VICTORIA J.,PADIYANGADAN, HOUSE NO.EP
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS & BUILDINGS

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR(NO VAK)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :28/08/2009

 O R D E R
                PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
             K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
    ------------------------------------------------
              L. A. A. No.956 of 2009
    ------------------------------------------------
      Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009

                     JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

We do not find any warrant for interference with

the judgment under appeal. The case pertains to

acquisition of land in Elathur village in Calicut district

for the purpose of construction of Railway over bridge.

The property was enjoying frontage of existing

National Highway. The relevant Section 4(1)

notification was published on 02/12/2000. The Land

Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of

Rs.20,090/- per cent which was enhanced by the

Reference Court at Rs.60,000/- per cent. The main

item of evidence was Ext.A1 and report of the

Commissioner. In Ext.A1, the distance between Ext.A1

property and acquired property was 50 metres. Ext.A1

L. A. A. No.956 of 2009 -2-

reveal a centage value of Rs.1 lakh. The learned

Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to award

the entire centage value revealed in Ext.A1 for the

reason that the Advocate Commissioner did not

inspect and compare Ext.A1 property with the

acquired property. But the Advocate Commissioner

recommended for much more than what is now

awarded. We feel that the appreciation of evidence by

the learned Subordinate Judge was proper and it is

more or less the correct market value of the property

at the relevant time which has been arrived at under

the impugned judgment.

The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-