IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 950 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA , REP BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, PWD,KANNUR
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
Vs
1. K.M.SUHARA, W/O.MAHIM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :07/09/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.950 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 7thday of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
We do not find any good reason for entertaining this
appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Chemmanad
Village in Kasaragod Taluk for the formation of Kasaragod –
Kanhangad State Highway. Relevant Section 4(1) notification
was published on 31/1/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent. Before
the Reference Court, the evidence on the side of the claimant
consisted mainly of Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.X1 commission
report. On the side of the Government, the basis document was
marked as Ext.R3. On the basis of the commission report, the
reference court concluded that the property covered by the basis
document was not comparable, since unlike the acquired
property, the property covered by the basis document did not
enjoy the frontage of road. Ext.A1 was a post notification
document. It revealed land value of Rs.40,000/- per cent. The
reference court did not become inclined to place complete
LAA.No.950/2009 2
reliance on Ext.A1. However, relying, to some extent, on
Ext.X1 report submitted by the advocate commissioner and
taking into account the value revealed in Ext.A1, the court below
concluded that the correct market value of the property under
acquisition would be Rs.25,000/- per cent. What the court below
did was to take the average of the values revealed in Exts.A1
and R3. We are of the view that approach of the court below
was quite reasonable and it is more or less the correct market
value of the properties at the relevant time which is arrived at by
the court below. We notice from the judgment that the court
below awarded Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for injurious
affection. Here again the award was based on Ext.X1
commission report. We do not find any warrant for interference.
The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk