IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 LA.App..No. 573 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.226/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LA (NH-1),KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,N.H DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT. ----------------------------------- ELAVANNA JUSSAIN,P.O GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE-14. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.573 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Olavanna Village in Kozhikode Taluk pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) published on 13/3/1991 for the purpose of Calicut Bye pass. As against the award of land value at the rate of Rs.2908/- per cent by the land acquisition officer, the reference court refixed the land value at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per cent. It is seen that the present refixation is made by the reference court pursuant to order of remand passed by this court in an appeal, which had been preferred by the Government as L.A.A.1678/1998. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on Exts.A2 and A3 common judgment in L.A.R. No.72/93 series and common judgment in L.A.R. No.413/1993 series respectively. Before the reference court, there were commission report Exts.C1 and subsequent commission reports Exts.X1 to X4. The commissioners who submitted Ext.C1 and Ext.X1 series were L.A.A..No.573/2007 2 respectively examined on the side of the claimant as AW2 and AW3. It is submitted that there was no objection filed by the Government to the commissioners' reports, which are seen relied on by the court below. The Registry reports that Ext.A1 and A3 have become final in the sense that L.A.A. Nos.912/94 and L.A.A. No.86/98 filed against L.A.R. No.232/92 and 413/93 (Exts.A1 and A3 respectively) have been dismissed and that no appeal was preferred against Ext.A2. 2. The learned Government Pleader would argue that this case involves a much larger extent of land and the total stakes for the Government will come to several Lakhs. According to him, though Exts.A1 and A3 may be having some probative value in this case for the reason that those two judgments are in respect of acquisition pursuant to the very same notification and for the very same purpose, this court shall not lose sight of the situation that it is a very extent of land which is involved in this case. The learned Government Pleader would therefore submit that Exts.A1 and A3, despite their finality may not be relied on. L.A.A..No.573/2007 3 We are not inclined to entertain the learned Government Pleader's submission in this case since we find that not even formal counter evidence was adduced by the Government despite the order of remand passed by this court. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk