STATE Vs. DEVAKI PUNNUPARAMBIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) WE do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the reference Court which is impugned in this appeal. The acquisition in question was for the purpose of construction of Railway bridge at Cheruthana village near Haripad. The Land Acquisition Officer granted land value at the rate of rs. 5,896/- per Are which was enhanced by the Reference Court by Rs. 6,672/- per are. The exact date of the relevant Section 4 (1) notification in this particular case is not disclosed either to the Reference Court or to us. From the records also it is not possible to find out the exact date of Section 4 (1) notification. This is a case where possession was taken in advance invoking the emergency provisions under Section 17 and this should be why the L. A. Authority has not disclose the date of Section 4 (1) notification. The question before us is whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court warrants interference. The above question, according to us, can be answered only in the negative. The court below had evidence only on the side of the claimant. Not even formal counter evidence was adduced by the respondents.

(3.) HAVING gone through the impugned judgment, we feel that the approach of the learned Sub Judge was quite reasonable and it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which was arrived at by the learned Sub Judge.