IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1499 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.136/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT:RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PATHUMAKUTTY, W/O.P.B.KUNJHAMMED, P.B.K.HOUSE, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE – 673 643. 2. ZAINUDDEEN, S/O.P.B.KUNJHAMMED, P.B.K.HOUSE, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE – 673 643. 3. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.P.B.KUNJHAMMED, P.B.K.HOUSE, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE – 673 643. 4. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.P.B.KUNJHAMMED, P.B.K.HOUSE, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE – 673 643. 5. SEENATH, D/O.P.B.KUNJHAMMED, P.B.K.HOUSE, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE – 673 643. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD (BRIDGES) SECTION, CALICUT - 20. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ============== L.A.A.No. 1499 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The learned Government Pleader, Sri. Basant Balaji has addressed before me very strenuously on various grounds raised against the judgment in L.A.R.No.136/2001, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Karuvanthuruthy- Chaliyam bridge pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) dated 05.8.1996. The learned sub Judge relied on a common judgment of the same court in L.A.R.Nos. 121/2001, 122/2001, 123/2001 and 124/2001, for granting enhancement. All these four cases were in respect of acquisition for the same purpose and pursuant to the very same notification. Thus, the learned Sub Judge cannot be blamed for having relied on the common judgment. The question to be considered therefore is whether the common judgment has attained finality. The Registry Reports and L.A.A.No. 1499 OF 2008 2 the learned Government Pleader submits that, against one of the cases (L.A.R.No.124/2001), an appeal L.A.A.No.407/2007 has been submitted to the Division Bench and that the same has been admitted and is now pending. At the same time, it is submitted that the Government has not preferred any appeal against L.A.R.Nos.121/2001, 122/2001 and 123/2001, the other three cases. Thus, it is clear that the common judgment to the extent the same, pertains to L.A.R.Nos. 121/2001, 122/2001 and 123/2001 has attained finality. Perhaps, it was considering the states involved in the cases, that the Government preferred to file an appeal only in L.A.R.No.124/2001. I find that in this case, the subject matter of the appeal is below Rs.10,000/-. On going through the judgment it is seen that in report of the advocate commissioner a comparison of the properties covered by the common judgment in L.A.R.No.121/2001 L.A.A.No. 1499 OF 2008 3 series is made and it was stated that the acquired properties were superior to those properties. The appeal will stand dismissed. But it is made clear that the decision to dismiss the appeal is taken only on the circumstance that the valuation is below Rs.10,000/-. This judgment will not be quoted as precedent in any where. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE bkn/-