IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 48 of 2005() ------------------------ LAR.258/1989 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: ----------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH, ADDL.A.G. RESPONDENTS: ------------- KURUMBA KALLIYANI, THUNDIL THEKKETHIL, PERUMON KIZHAKKE CHERRY. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.226/2005 IN L.A.A. 48/2005 DISMISSED 2.7.2008 SD/- PIU C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- l.A.A.NO. 48 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the award of the reference court in L.A.R. No.258/1989 . This court on 24.9.2007 dismissed this appeal observing that the reference case, which is subject matter of this appeal was tried along with eight other cases and that the appeals preferred by the Government against other eight cases were dismissed. Subsequently, the Government filed a review petition seeking review of the judgment pointing out that many of the L.A.As. referred to in the judgment were not in respect of the impugned common judgment. Accordingly, the review petition was allowed. 2. Even though the respondent has been served with notice she has not entered appearance before this court. I have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha Thankappan, the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submitted that among the various L.A.As. mentioned in this court's judgment dated 24.9.2007, L.A.A. No. 50/2004 was an appeal relating to the one of the nine cases covered by the common judgment. Though the dismissal of that L.A.A. No.48/2005 2 L.A.A. on the basis of dismissal of L.A.A.Nos. 141/2000, 765/2000 and 426/2002 was not proper, the Government has not so far sought for review of the judgment in L.A.A. No.50/2004. 3. The learned Government Pleader addressed me on all the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. I have considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and gone through the impugned judgment. It is seen that under the impugned judgment, the reference court has enhanced the land value originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.5,296/- per Are to Rs.18,525/- per Are relying mainly on Ext. A2 judgment in LAR No.105/95 and Ext. A3 judgment L.A.R. No.103/92. The Acquisition, in fact, was for the purpose of Perumon Refractories and was pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 6.5.1986. Having gone through the impugned judgment, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be faulted for having placed reliance on Exts.A2 and A3. The learned Government Pleader conceded that Exts. A2 and A3 have attained finality in the sense that the Government has not preferred any appeal against A1 and A2. In view of the finality attained by A1 and A2 and also the judgment in L.A.A. No.50/2004, which was directed against one of the nine cases covered by the common judgment, I am of the view that the impugned L.A.A. No.48/2005 3 judgment cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk