IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 560 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.44/2005 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.NO.III, VYTTILA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. SMT. PANKAJAM (DIED), W/O. RAVEENDRAN (LATE), UZHINJELIL, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O. 2. GIJI U.R. (DIED), D/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- 3. AJI U.R., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- 4. BIJI U.R., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- 5. BINDU U.R., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- 6. BINI U.R., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- 7. SINI U.R., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- 8. ARUNKUMAR U.R., S/O. RAVEENDRAN, -DO- ADDL 9.. SAMLAL BABU, S/O. PADMANABHAN, AMBADY HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 10. SAJIKANTH, D/O. SAMLAL BABU, AMBADY HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 11. GINJU SAMLAL, D/O. SAMLAL BABU, -DO- THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 560 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is remaining defective on the reason that service is not completed on respondents 6, 9 and 10. But it is seen that respondents 6, 9 and 10 are legal heirs of respondents 1 and 2 who passed away. The other legal heirs of respondents 1 and 2 are already on the array of parties and there is no conflict between the the interest of respondents 6, 9 and 10 and that of the other respondents in the subject matter of the appeal. The appeal need not be treated as defective. 2. This appeal by the government pertains to acquisition of land in Poonithura village for the construction of railway over bridge at Ponnurunni. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 28-5-2002. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 185,850/- per Are which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs. 3,61,260/- per Are. It is noticed that in appeals preferred by the claimants, this court granted further enhancement. 3. Therefore, according to us, there is no warrant for interfering LAA.No.560/07 2 with the determination of market value in this case by the reference court. But the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji submitted that the reference court went wrong in awarding an increase of 29,172/- towards building value since the reference was not under Section 18, but was under Section 28 A(3). We notice a point in what the government pleader says. But it is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned common judgment as well as in a few other cases decided by her relating to the very same acquisition has granted a uniform enhancement of 40% over the building value on the reason that construction in accordance with the PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. More over, it is seen that the learned Government Pleader's argument is not founded on grounds in the memorandum of appeal. For both these reasons, we dismiss this appeal. The question whether in a reference under Section 28 A (3), enhancement can be granted towards building value has not been decided by us in this appeal. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.560/07 2