IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 90 of 2007() ---------------------------------- LAR.333/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 --------------------------------------- 1. K.G.CHACKO PANICKER, PUTHIYAVEEDU, KANIYAM VADAKKETHILAYA, KAICHAL MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.376/2007 IN LAA. NO.90/2007 DISMISSED 17/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 90 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Alappuzha in LAR 333/02. The Land Acquisition Court passed an award whereby it has been decided that the claimants will be entitled to enhance land value of Rs.12,093.40 per Are. Or in other words the Land Acquisition Court had enhanced the land value from 4,837/- per are to Rs.16,930/- per Are. This was done on the basis of Ext.A1 judgment which was an award passed in LAR 500/94. The learned Government Pleader submits before me that an appeal was preferred against LAR 500/94 as LAA 658/07 and this Court had confirmed the award passed by the trial court. So the relied on judgment has become final. Even then the Land Acquisition Court did not award the total amount as ordered under Ext.A1 but considering the fact that it is situated three kilometers away from Haripad town reduced it L.A.A. 90 OF 2007 -2- to 80% and passed an award. So the Land Acquisition Court has applied its mind properly and passed an award. It is true that the first respondent in the appeal is dead and petitions are filed to implead the legal representatives. Since I have found that there is nothing to interfere with the award passed I do not think that further impleadment has to be done in this case. Therefore those petitions are closed and the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-