IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 2465 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUMARAN NAIR, RAMASADANAM,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :16/01/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No. 2465 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of
land in Sarkara Village in Chirayinkeezh Taluk pursuant to a
notification under Section 4(1) published on 23/8/1995. The
purpose of acquisition was doubling of the railway line between
Kollam and Thiruvananthapauram. The land acquisition officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.98,800/- per Are. The
reference court relied on Exts.A1 to A6 and the oral testimony
of AW1 on the side of the claimant respondent. The evidence on
the side of the appellant consisted of Exts.R1 and R6 and oral
testimony of RW1. Ext.A4 was the court’s judgment in respect
of the property in the same village , but acquired under a much
earlier notification under Section 4(1). The court below did not
place reliance on Ext.A4 on the reason that there was no
commission report making a comparative study of Ext.A4
L.A.A..No.2465/2008 2
property and the acquired property and also on the reason that it
is not clear whether Ext.A4 has become final. The court below
relied on Ext.A3 sale document executed in the year 1995 some
four years prior to Section 4(1) notification. It was seen by the
court below that Ext.A3 relates to property having an extent of
4 = cents only.
2. Considering the smallness of the plot covered by Ext.A3,
what the court below did was to rely on Ext.A3 for the purpose of
determining the land value, but without giving any addition for
the passage of four year’s time. The court below, thus refixed
the land value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per cent. It is now
brought to our notice that Ext.A4 has attained finality.
3. Having gone through the judgment under appeal and
having considered the submissions of the learned Government
Pleader, we are of the view that learned subordinate judgment
has arrived at more or less correct findings as to the market
value of the acquired property as on the relevant date of the
Section 4 (1) notification. The findings, in our opinion, are
reasonable and founded on evidence. Moreover, we find that
the total stakes involved in the appeal is not much.
L.A.A..No.2465/2008 3
For all the above reasons, this appeal will stand dismissed in
limine.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE
dpk