IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 553 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.56/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CITY CORPORATION, OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ 1. M.PRAMEELA, NETTAYATHU THEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHAVALLOOR, VILAPPILSALA. 2. D.DAVID, NETTAYATHU THEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHAVALLOOR, VILAPPILSALA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.553 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. By our order dated 5-6-2009, we found that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in placing reliance on Ext.A4 judgment for the purpose of granting enhancement to the claimant. The Registry reports that the appeal preferred against Ext.A4 as L.A.A.No.1757/2007 was dismissed by this court. Thus the enhancement granted by the reference court cannot legitimately be questioned by the government. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior government pleader raised another point. According to him, going by the mahazer as well as the award, the extent of the property acquired is only 22.20 Ares, but the claimant raised a contention that the actual extent is 24.30 Ares. The claimant did not adduce any evidence to show that the actual extent is 24.30 Ares. But the reference court accepted the claimant's claim regarding extent stating that it was the duty of the land acquisition officer to have taken steps for re-measuring LAA.No.553/2009 2 the property. Sri.Basant Balaji argued that the approach of the court was unreasonable and incorrect. We are unable to accept the above submission of the learned government pleader since we find that no specific ground in this regard is raised in the appeal memorandum. All the grounds raised in the appeal memo pertains to enhancement of land value granted under the impugned judgment. In the absence of any specific ground, we do not find any ground to entertain the ground pertaining to extent. The appeal is dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.553/2009 2