IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 697 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.39/2000 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA), KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT: ---------------------- A.N.P.SABANA, D/O.ABDUL KHADER, ETTILULAM P.O., RAMANTHALI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1919 OF 2007 IN L.A.A.NO.697 OF 2007 DISMISSED 30-06-2008 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 697 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The Government has come up in appeal against the revised judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Payyannur in L.A.R. No.39/2000. In fact L.A.R. No. 39/2000 was originally considered by the learned Subordinate Judge along with L.A.R.No. 14/2000 and the learned Judge enhanced the total original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 51,713/- to Rs. 83,600/-. For giving this enhancement, the learned Subordinate Judge relied mainly on the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in a parallel suit as well as on the evidence given by the respondent-claimant as AW1 and the Advocate Commissioner as AW2. Against that judgment the respondents preferred L.A.A. Nos. 504/203 and 944/2003. This court set aside the judgment and decree of the reference court and remanded the matter back to the reference court permitting the respondents to adduce LAA.No.697/07 2 counter evidence. The order of remand was made conditional on the respondent depositing 50% of the decree debt within a time limit. The appellants did not deposit the amount within the stipulated time. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed ( rightly also) that it cannot be said that the order of remand has become operative. The learned Judge however proceeded to re-appreciate the evidence. It is on the basis of such re-appreciation that the impugned decree re-fixing the total compensation as Rs. 83,600/- instead of the compensation awarded by the officer - Rs. 51,713/- has been passed. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the findings are not based on evidence. I find that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable and the conclusion of the learned Judge that Rs. 83,600/- is the correct total compensation to be paid to the respondents for their acquired property is a conclusion which is realistic and therefore I am not inclined to admit this appeal especially since I am informed that the party has already been paid about 50% of the total enhanced compensation and the balance which remains is only LAA.No.697/07 3 a small amount. The appeal is dismissed in limine. But, it is made clear that this judgment will not be quoted as a precedent for any other cases. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.697/07 4