IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 249 of 2007()
1. MEENADAN GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANNAMMA EAPEN, CHUNDAMANNIL,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.No. 249 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Even though the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Jose
Pallattukaran addressed me strenuously and persuasively on all the
grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, I am not persuaded to
hold that the judgment of the reference court under appeal warrants
interference. The acquisition was for widening a Panchayat road at the
instance of the appellant Panchayat who were the second respondent
before the reference court. The awarding officer granted land value at
the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Are in this acquisition which was pursuant
to a section 4(1) notification dated 8-7-1998. The evidence before the
reference court consisted mainly of Exts.A2, A3 and AW1 on the side
of the first respondent claimant and Exts.R1, R2 and RW1 on the side
of the State and the appellant Panchayat. Apart from that there was
Ext.C1 Commissioner’s report and Ext.C1(a) plan. Ext.A2 was a
pre-notification document in relation to six cents of land purchased by
the local merchants union. That document revealed land value of
LAA.No.249/07 2
Rs. 15,000/- per cent. Ext.A3 was a post notification document and
that document revealed land value of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The learned
Subordinate Judge on appreciating the evidence did not become
inclined to rely on Exts.A2 and A3 except for the purpose of
understanding the general trend in the value of the land in the area.
The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the oral evidence of AW1 and
also on Ext.C1 Commissioner’s report. Commissioner had
recommended land value of Rs. 22,000/- per Are. Though the
Commissioner’s report was accepted completely in the matter of
controversy between the parties as to the extent of the property, learned
Judge did not accept the Commissioner’s recommendations regarding
land value in full. Applying the Rule of thumb and the information
which could be discerned regarding the market value of the property
from Exts.A2 and A3 learned Judge granted Rs. 6000/- per Are as
enhanced land value.
Having gone through the judgment of the learned Subordinate
Judge and having re-appreciated the data emerging from the evidence
which was on record, I feel that the approach of the learned
LAA.No.249/07 3
Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable. According to me, learned
Subordinate Judge has arrived at a reasonable estimate as to what could
have been the market value of the land in question payable by a willing
seller to a willing purchaser.
The appeal will stand dismissed inlimine.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.249/07 4