IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 299 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.203/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA - REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. R.SUDHAKARAN, NEYYASERIL ERUVA MURIYIL, PATHIYOOR. 2. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.299 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Smt.Latha T.Thankapan, learned senior Government Pleader addressed us very strenuously and persuasively, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal any longer. The acquisition was at Pathiyoor village for the purpose of construction of Eruva – Kakkanad road. The relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 23/11/1985. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6889/- per Are for dry lands and at the rate of Rs.1308/- per Are for wet land. The reference court, relying on Ext.A1 judgment of the same court in another case pertaining to the very same acquisition and pursuant to the very same notification and for the same purpose, refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.37,791/- per Are for dry land and Rs.7725.50 per Are for wet land. It is not disputed that Ext.A1 has attained finality. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are convinced that Ext.A1 was a relevant judgment. There is some LAA.No.299/2007 2 force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that under Ext.A1 it was higher value which had been awarded by the land acquisition officer for wet lands and therefore the court below was not justified in granting land value at the rate of Rs.7725.50 for wet land. At the same time, we notice that total stakes involved in this appeal especially to the extent it pertain to wet land is not much. Therefore, we are inclined to approve the impugned judgment in view of the finality attained by Ext.A1. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk