IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 LA.App..No. 2381 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.366/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS NO.1, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- 1. N.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, MENEZHATHU VEEDU, VAYANAKATHU KARAIMA MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. JAGADAMA, W/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, MENEZHATHU VEEDU, VAYANAKATHU KARAIMA MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.2381/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to the acquisition of 2.80 Ares of land in Oachira Village for the formation of doubling of railway track. The Land acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.3,840/- per Are. The reference court enhanced the same to Rs.17,290/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 to A4 on the side of the claimants and Exts. R1 and R2 on the side of the appellants. The oral evidence consisted of testimony of claimant as PW 1. There was no counter oral evidence on the side of the appellants. The learned subordinate judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A2 and A4 sale deed put in evidence by the claimants. But it was found by the court below that property covered by Ext.A1 was comparable to the acquired property. It was also found that in Ext.A1 the land value had been refixed to Rs.17,290/- relying on Ext.A3. L.A.A..No.2381/2008 2 2. The Registry reports that Ext.A1 has become final in the sense that the Government has not preferred any appeal against Ext.A1. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the reference court and having heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be faulted for having relied on Ext.A1. In view of the finality attained by Ext.A1, no useful purpose will be served from the Government's point of view by admitting this appeal. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk