IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2007 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 LA.App..No. 529 of 2002() and Cross Objection ------------------------- LAR.27/1995 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.LATHA K ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS ---------------------- 1. T.L.NALINAKUMARY,CHANIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAIKOM. 2. T.L.PADMAKUMARI,TAYIL CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR ERNAKULAM. 3. T.L.VASANTHAKUMARI,PADMAVIHAR, AYYAPPA NAGAR,ERNAKULAM. 4. T.J.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.N.SUKUMARAN NAIR,LAKSHMITHOP VEEDU (SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN), MUPPATHADAM,KADUNGATHUR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. S.SREEKUMAR OF DO. DO. 6. S.KRISHNA KUMAR OF DO. DO. 7. MANOJ S.NAIR OF DO. DO. 8. S.MAHESHKUMAR OF DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.AJAKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6202/2002 IN CROSS OBJECTION IN L.A.A.No.529/2002 ALLOWED. SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE 06/12/2007 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.4082/2004 IN L.A.A.No.529/2002 CLOSED. SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE 06/12/2007 \\TRUE COPY// KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Land Acquisition Appeal No. 529 of 2002-B and Cross Objection ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 6th day of December, 2007 J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R No.27/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The acquisition is for the purpose of expansion of Museum and Zoo. It is seen that the relied on judgment has become final in view of the judgment in L.A.A.No.935/1997. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State is only to be dismissed. The claimant has a grievance that he has not been granted the statutory benefit of interest on solatium. Being a settled position [See the decision reported in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489 (SC)], we hold that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium also. Subject to the above modification in the judgment and decree, this appeal is dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE ms