IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 12 of 2008() ------------------------ LAR.9/1992 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... APPELLANT: ----------- THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KRISHNAMMAL, W/O.ARAVINDAN NAIR, CHENTHILAKAM, PEERMADE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA FOR R1 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- C.M.Appln.8/2008 & L.A.A. NO. 12 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 4439 days in filing the appeal. The explanation offered through the affidavit sworn to by the Assistant Executive Engineer attached to the office of the Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board is that due to an inadvertent omission in the in the office of the counsel appearing for the KSEB before the court below, the application for certified copy of the judgment and decree, which were passed on 31.7.1995, was given only on 24.9.2007. 2. I am not at all convinced by the above explanation more so since nobody from the office of the Government Pleader in the court below has come forward to endorse this explanation. Moreover I find that, on merits also, the appellant cannot have a good case. The acquisition was in respect of 1.92 Ares of land comprised in Peerumade Village and the property was situated just one and half Kilometers away from the Peerumade town and was close to the Peerumade Guest House. The relevant notification under Section 4 (1) is dated 3.10.1988 and the awarding officer has granted the land value at the rate of 1976/- per Are. The respondents had not adduced C.M.Appln.8/2008 & L.A.A. NO.12/20082 any counter evidence before the court below. They had not even bothered to produce the basic documents. On the side of the claimant the claimant got himself examined as AW1. The court found that the respondents' evidence was also not sufficient to justify enhancement of land value. Ultimately what the court did was to rely on the court's own judgments in other cases pertaining to the very same acquisition i.e. covered by the very same 4 (1) notification and for the very same purpose i.e. purpose of Azhutha Diversion Scheme and re- fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent. 3. Having regard to the importance of the locality and the importance of the Peermadu town, I am of the view that the enhancement granted by the court below on the basis of the relevant judgment cannot be said to be wrong. The enhancement, in my opinion, is quite reasonable. For this reason also, I am not inclined to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay will stand dismissed. The Land Acquisition Appeal also will stand rejected in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk C.M.Appln.8/2008 & L.A.A. NO.12/20083