IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 842 of 2005() ----------------------------------- LAR.38/1999 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT. ----------------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER (HR), NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.MR.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & IST RESPONDENT. -------------------------- 1. REPHEEGA BEEVI, KOTTOLI HOUSE, VALIYAKUZHY, CHEPPAD. 2. SHAJI RASHEED, OF DO. 3. SHAJEELA OF DO. 4. SHAJIL RASHEED OF DO. 5. SHAJITH RASHEED OF DO. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A. No. 842 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. The Registry reports that service of notice on respondents 2, 4 and 5 is returned unserved, that notice on 5th respondent returned unclaimed and that the service not complete. On going through the judgment, it is seen that the party respondents are members of the same family and were appearing through the same Advocate. There is no conflict of interest between them. Therefore interest of the parties yet to be served is represented adequately by the parties who have been served. We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal can be considered on merits. 2. This is an appeal by the requestioning authority. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.735/- per Are. The reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs.9,050/- per Are. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. In this case where the claimants/respondents have not entered appearance, we feel that the enhancement granted by the reference court is on the higher side. On re-appreciation of the evidence, we are of the L.A.A.No 842/05 2 view that the market value could have been fixed correctly at Rs.2,205/- per Are. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree and re-fix the land value at Rs.2,205/- per Are. The appeal stands allowed but without any order as to costs. The claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible in law on the total enhanced compensation to which they are entitled by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mn.