IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 966 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.23/2001 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT IN THE LAR -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS IN THE LAR --------------------------------- A.K.NANDANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, APPAMALAYIL, MANAKKADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.2355/2007 IN L.A.A.966/2007 DISMISSED 20.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. T JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 966 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the Government pertains to the acquisition of 0.75 ares of land comprised in Survey No.149/23 of Manakkadu Village for the purpose of widening of Thodupuzha – Ramamangalam Road pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 18.8.1999. The awarding Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.22,320/- per are which was enhanced by the reference court at the rate of Rs.28,600/- per cent. 2. I have gone through the judgment of the reference court. I find that the reference court found that the property covered by Ext.A4 judgment in L.A.R. No.16/2001 was acquired on the basis of the very same notification and for the same purpose and that the awarding officer had treated the properties in that case to be likely superior in quality to the acquired properties in the present case. Though complete reliance was not placed on A4 judgment or for that matter on A2 and A3 documents, the court below did not completely ignore either A4 or A3 and fixed the land value for the subject properties at L.A.A. No.966/2007 2 the rate of Rs.28,600/- per cent. The evidence strongly indicated that the acquired properties and the property covered by Ext.A3 were situated at a distance of 450 meters only. The rate fixed by the reference court was the rate in between the rate fixed as per Ext.A4 and the rate reflected by Ext.A3. The approach of the reference court , in my opinion, was quite reasonable. More over I am given to understand that the appeal preferred by the Government against Ext.A4 has attained finality since by a common judgment in L.A.A. Nos. 122/2006, 205/2007 & 729/2004 the said appeal was dismissed. I am, therefore, of the view that no useful purpose will be served by admitting this appeal from the Government's point of view. This appeal will stand dismissed in limine. It is of course noticed that appeal filed by the claimant against Ext.A4 has been admitted and pending before this court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk