IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1052 of 2008(C) -------------------------- LAR.70/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT. ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT --------------------------------- 1. ANNIE, D/O. AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH. 2. KOCHUTHRESSIA, D/O. AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH. * 3. JOSEPH, S/O. AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH. [DIED] 4. MATHEW, S/O. AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH. 5. JESSY, D/O. AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH. 6. SOSAMMA, W/O. JOSEPH, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH. 7. ROSEMARY, D/O. AUGUSTY, PRESENT ADDRESS W/O. JOHNY, VITHAYATHIL, ALANGADU VILLAGE. 8. VARGHESE, S/O. AUGUSTY, AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY. 9. RENI, W/O. JIJO, PAINUNGAL, THIRUVAMKULAM VILLAGE. 10. RANI, D/O. AUGUSTY, KOTTAKKAPPARAVETTY, KARINGAMTHURUTH, ALANGADU. *[RESPONDENT NO.3 DIED AND RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED THIRD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DT.25/08/09 ON MEMO FILED BY THE GOVT. PLEADER DT.12/08/09] THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1052 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Service on the respondents is complete except in the case R4 and R9. We notice that R4 and R9 are the children of R1 Annie and the siblings of the other respondents who have already been served. In fact, all these respondents were sailing together before the Reference Court and obviously there is no conflict of interest inter se between them. According to us, the interests of R4 and R9 in the subject matter of appeal is adequately represented by other respondents. Therefore, separate notice need not be served on R4 and R9. L. A. A. No.1052 of 2008 -2- 2. It is reported by the Registry that the appeal preferred by the Government against the judgment in L.A.R.138/99 relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge was dismissed. Thus, there is no warrant at all for interfering with the enhancement in the market value of the lands under acquisition by the learned Subordinate Judge. 3. At the same time, we notice some merit in ground No.E raised in the memorandum of appeal. The Land Acquisition Officer did not award full land value for 3.79 Ares from out of the acquired land on the reason that the above portion was lying as public road. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment has awarded full land value at the re-fixed rate for that portion also. Absolutely no reason is stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for treating the above portion on a par with the other portions of L. A. A. No.1052 of 2008 -3- the acquired property. What was available was only the oral evidence of the party and nothing more. We are in agreement with the learned Government Pleader who submits that the above portion extending 3.79 Ares was actually lying as a part of the public road. At the same time, we cannot accept his argument that only a nominal value of Rs.100/- can be awarded to the claimants. Admittedly the claimants were never divested of the title over that portion. If it was the Government's stand that the claimants did not have title and the above portion was part of road puramboke, it was absolutely unnecessary for the Government to have initiated land acquisition proceedings in respect of that portion. At the same time taking into account the circumstances that the above portion was lying as a part of the public road and the claimant did not have absolutely possessory L. A. A. No.1052 of 2008 -4- control over that portion, we are of the view that in respect of that portion extending to 3.79 Ares, the court below should not have granted full land value. We interfere with the impugned judgment to the extent it pertains to the portion extending to 3.79 Ares and treated by the Land Acquisition Officer as road. We re-fix the land value of that portion at Rs.11,000/- per Are. 4. The appeal is allowed to that extent. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-