IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 846 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.165/2004 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- M.MOHAMMED ABBAS, THERIVILA, HARBOUR ROAD, (NEAR MOSQUE REJAB STORE, VIAHINJAM). ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR FOR R THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. No. 846 of 2009 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. There is some merit in the submission of the learned senior Government Pleader that the court below was justified in including the property under acquisition in a superior category in the absence of quality evidence such as Commissioner’s report. But, we notice that AW1, the claimant, asserted in his testimony that the property under acquisition had all the advantages of properties including in Category C. The court below accepted that evidence and found that the property under acquisition is eligible to be included in Category C. If that be so, in view of the finality attained by Ext.A1, the impugned judgment cannot be fault. The appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that this judgment will not be quoted as a precedent for other cases. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks