IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 85 of 2006()
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALLIYADANKANDY MOHAMMED BACKER,
... Respondent
2. ELAMBILAT RAYAROTH IBRAHIIM HAJI,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :29/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
L.A.Appeal No.85 of 2006
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
This is an appeal preferred by the requisitioning
authority. The properties under acquisition were in Irivery
Village of Kannur Taluk. Relevant section 4(1) notification
was published on 21.8.1997 and the acquisition was for
the purpose of the appellant requisitioning authority’s
bus stand. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land
value at the rate of Rs.3600/- per cent. The reference
court relied on the very documents of title under which
the claimants that come on the properties. The document
is of the year 1993. They revealed the land value of
Rs.8000/- per cent.
2. Mr.I.V.Pramod, the learned counsel for the
appellant would assail the impugned judgments on all the
grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He
submitted that in similar cases, the court below has re-
fixed the land value only at Rs.6,000/-.
3. The above submission of the learned counsel is not
LAA No.85 of 2006 2
supported by any evidence on record.
4. What the court below done is to grant additions for
the passage of four years time. Though it would appear
that the additions granted by the learned subordinate
judge for passage of time is excessive, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned judgment. We find that
against the oral evidence adduced by the claimant, there
was no counter evidence. We also notice that the
Advocate Commissioner’s who inspected the properties
covered by the other documents produced by the claimant
in support of the enhanced land value have recommended
for value higher than what is now fixed. We feel that the
approach of the learned subordinate judge was quite
reasonable and hence the impugned judgment is not liable
for interference. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/