IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 750 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.40/2001 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPL.TAHASILDAR (L.A.), KASARAGOD. BY SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL BY SR..G.P.SRI.BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.K. ABBAS, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUNHI, PALLIKKARE II, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KANNUR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L.A.A.No.750 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Hosdurg in LAR.No.40/2001. The property having an extent of 0.0100 hectors of land in R.S.No.10/1B(14) of Pallikkare II village was acquired as per notification dated 3.4.1997. The land was taken possession on 13.8.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation payable at Rs.52,976/= and thereafter a reference was made and in the reference, the learned Land Acquisition Judge fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/= per cent thereby entitling the claimant to have an enhanced compensation of Rs.32,196/=. The trial court relied upon Ext.A1 which was a common award passed in LAR Nos.45,46,47,69,70 to 73 and 74/2000. The main contention is that the said Ext.A1 judgment has not become final. 2. Now it is fairly submitted before me by the learned Government Pleader that appeals preferred against LAR Nos. 45,46,47 of 2000 as LAA.Nos. 286/2004 525/2004 and : 2 : L.A.A.No.750 OF 2005 552/2004 had been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 24.1.2008. 3. I had also perused the manner in which the land acquisition court has approached the matter and it is very clearly stated that the acquired property is having a road facility also and the property is situated just 50 metres away from a State Highway. So, the court below has taken note of the entire materials available. The Commissioner's report also revealed that the acquired property is situated at a commercially important place. So, in the light of these facts coupled with the finality that is attained to some of the judgments which is relied upon, I find there is nothing to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Subordinate court fixing the land value at Rs.20,000/= per cent. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : L.A.A.No.750 OF 2005 : 4 : L.A.A.No.750 OF 2005