IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1658 of 2008(D)
1. THE SPL. TAHSILDAR, LA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.N.RAJENDRAKUMAR,
... Respondent
2. P.JYOTHI, W/O. RAJENDRAKUMAR,
3. GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :30/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.1658 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Even though the Government Pleader has addressed me
very persuasively, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. The
appeal pertains to acquisition of 0.01519 hectares of land in
Chittariparamba town pursuant to notification under Section 4
(1) dated 9/6/2000 for the construction of telephone exchange.
The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.3,527/- per cent which was enhanced by the reference court
to Rs.7,500/- per cent. The evidence before the reference court
consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 26/10/1996 (about four
years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification), testimony
of AW-1 claimant and AW-2, an advocate commissioner who had
been deputed to inspect the acquired property as well as the
property covered by Ext.A1 and also to compare these properties.
The case of the respondents was that taking into account the
passage of four years time, the acquired property should have
been give much higher value than the value of Rs.7500/- seen
L.A.R.No.1658/2008 2
paid under Ext.A1. The ground, which is prominently raised by
the Government, is that there was no justification for not relying
on the basis document which was in respect of a property
situated at a distance of just 10 metres from the acquired
property. It is true that the Advocate commissioner also found
that the basis land is situated at the distance of 10 metres from
the acquired property. But, it is seen that the Government did
not produce the basis document. The Government did not
adduce any other evidence in support of the Government’s
contention that the land value fixed by the awarding officer is the
market value which prevailed on the relevant dates.
2. Having gone through the judgment of the reference
court, I am of the view that the learned Judge has arrived at
findings on the basis of whatever evidence was available before
him. Ext.A1 property was a property which did not have any
road frontage at all. Despite the request of the respondents for
giving additions on account of the passage of time, the court did
not become incline to give any additions. This case was decided
by the learned Judge by a common judgment in L.A.R. No.
191/2004, which was supported by L.A.R. No.190/2004. It is
L.A.R.No.1658/2008 3
reported that the judgment in L.A.R. No.190/2004 has become
final in the sense that the Government did not prefer any appeal
against that judgment.
For both the above reasons, this appeal will stand dismissed
in limine.
(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk