IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 718 of 2007(D) -------------------------------------- LAR.14/2000 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------ ACHIMOOSANTAKATH PADINHARE PURAYIL KADEEJA, W/O.ABDUL KADER, ETTIKULAM, RAMANTHALI VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: L.A.A. NO.718/2007 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1941/2007 IN L.A.A. NO.718/2007 DISMISSED 10/09/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 718 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Payyannur in LAR 14/00. originally an award was passed and against that award an appeal was preferred by the Government. This Court by its judgment in LAA 504/03 and 944/03 set aside the judgment and directed the land acquisition Court to pass a fresh award after hearing the parties without giving any opportunity for adducing further evidence. There was also a stipulation that the Government should deposit 50% of the amount in favour of the respondent. It appears that the Government as usual did not deposit the amount but even then the land acquisition Court proceeded to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. By the revised award it has granted an enhancement of Rs.77,910/-. It is against that decision the Government has come up in appeal. L.A.A. 718 OF 2007 -2- 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit before me that the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is not supported by materials. It is even otherwise to be stated that at the time of remand itself this Court made it clear that the Court below should not grant any opportunity to any of the parties to adduce further evidence. It was only a rehearing that was contemplated which has been done and the case disposed of. There was another matter LAR 39/00 and against the revised award in that case an appeal was preferred as LAA 697/07. The Hon'ble judge of this Court considered the matter and held that the appeal has to be dismissed in limine. The learned judge made it clear that the said judgment need not be set as a precedent in any other case. This Court also considered the correctness of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and found that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable and his conclusion is right. I had perused the award in this case as well. Property involved in this case is a part and parcel of the residential property of the claimant. There was four coconut trees in the property. Over and above there was a compound wall as well. It is also seen that the property is situated very L.A.A. 718 OF 2007 -3- near public institutions like Government High School, Hospital, telephone exchange etc. The Court also found that there are also other commercial establishments situated within a radius of 500 mts. of the acquired land. The Court also specifically arrived at a decision that the property herein and the property acquired in LAR 39/00 are situated in an adjacent manner. It is also further observed that the acquired lands are situated in a residential area with all the modern facilities for living and good drinking water is also available. So it is only on the basis of the entire materials available and taking into consideration all the relevant facts the land acquisition Court has fixed the amount. As held by this Court in that judgment the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is supported with sufficient reasons and proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore I do not find any merit in this appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed. As observed by the learned Judge in the other case it is also made clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent for fixing the value in other cases. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-