IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 1130 of 2003() -------------------------- LAR.148/1998 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): NOT PARTY IN L.A.R -------------------------------- THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL AIRPORTS DIVISION, CALICUT AIRPORT P.O., CALICUT AIRPORT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, CALICUT AIRPOR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- 1. SRI.POOPAYIL ABDUL NAZAR, THE AUTHORISED AGENT OF SRI.POOPAYIL, AHAMMED, S/O.UNNIMOIDEEN. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R2 BY G.P. SRI.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH LAA 1127/2003 ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... L.A.A. Nos.1130 & 1127 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. These appeals are filed by the common appellant mainly on the ground that they were not parties before the Land Acquisition Court where the land owners claimed enhancement pursuant to acquisition of their land for the Airport. Even though we agree with the appellant that they had a right to be heard and it was wrong on the part of the Sub Court to have proceeded to consider enhancement without hearing the party who bears the cost, we do not find any ground to remand the matter because in absolute terms, the total compensation awarded is only Rs.12,000/- per cent of land around the Airport. Going by the awards passed by this court generally in land acquisition cases, we are constrained to observe that the compensation awarded is thoroughly reasonable, if not inadequate. Even though counsel for the appellant submitted before us that connected cases are remanded for the purpose of hearing the appellant, we are of the view that if the compensation 2 awarded in those cases is similar to this case, then the remand serves only an empty formality leading to loss to the appellant which is a Government agency. The Government Pleader will forward a copy of this judgment to the Sub Court to ensure that litigation is not protracted on technicalities and the matter gets closed without any delay. The appeals are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms