IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM : PRESENT . . THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PIUS C KURIAKOSE & . . . THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C K ABDUL REHIM , 2 2010 / 12 1932 WEDNESDAY THE ND JUNE TH JYAISTHA . .. . 143 2002() LA App No of ------------------------- .30/1998 , LAR of SUB COURT MANJERI .................... ( ): / : APPELLANT S PETITIONER APPELLANT ----------------------------------- . STATE OF KERALA . . BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT LATHA T THANKAPPAN ( ): / : RESPONDENT S RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. , ALIPRA KUNHUPATHUMMA / . . D O PUTHIYAKATH MAMADEESAKUTTY 2. . CHILDREN IBRAHIMKUTTY 3. . CHILDREN MOHAMMED HANEEFA 4. . CHILDREN AMINAKUTTY 5. . CHILDREN ASMA BEEVI 6. ( ). CHILDREN KHALID MINOR 7. ( ). CHILDREN JAFFER MINOR 8. ( ), , CHILDREN KAULATH MINOR NEDIYIRUPPU . . , . P O MELANGADI VIA KONDOTTY MINOR CLAIMANTS BY - 1 . GUARDIAN ST CLAIMANT THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 02/06/2010, ON THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE : FOLLOWING PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 143 of 2002 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Registry notes that service of notice is not completed on R2, R3, R6 and R8. But we find that all the respondents were claimants before the court below and they were appearing through the same advocate. In fact, interest of those respondents who are yet to be served is well represented by respondents already served. Since all of them belong to the same family we are of the opinion that service of notice on the respondent can be declared as completed. It is accordingly declared. 2. This appeal is directed against a common judgment in a number of land acquisition references including LAR. No. 51 of 1997. This case pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of the Calicut Airport. It is brought to our notice by the learned Govt. Pleader that the judgment in LAA. No. 143/02 -2- LAR No. 51 of 1997 which is also covered by the impugned common judgment was appealed against as LAA. No. 645 of 2002 and that the above appeal was allowed by way remand. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the requisitioning authority, the Airport Director was not a party before the reference court. Under the above circumstance we are of the view that the impugned judgment should be interfered with and the matter relegated back to the reference court. Accordingly following the decision in LAA. No. 645 of 2002 we set aside the impugned judgment and remand LAR. No. 30 of 1998 to the Sub Court, Manjeri. That court is directed to implead the Airport Director as additional respondent. Thereafter, further enquiry will be conducted and revised judgment will be passed on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which comes on record. All parties should be permitted to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. Revised judgment should be passed LAA. No. 143/02 -3- early and at any rate, within six months from today. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. No. 143/02 -4- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. LAA. No. 143 of 2002 JUDGMENT 2nd JUNE, 2010