IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 470 of 2007() ----------------------------------- LAR.284/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN LAR NO.284/1998: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K. BABU. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 & 2 & 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR NO.284/1998. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PANKAJAKSHAN, JAYASREE NIVAS, THEKKUM BHAGAM MURI, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. L. BABY GIRIJA, ANANADHA BHAVAN, MANDAKKAL, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS (KERALA) KARIAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. R3 BY ADV. MR.P.A.AHAMMED. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.App..No. 470 of 2007 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1490/2007 IN L.A.A. NO.470/2007. DISMISSED 01/10/2009. SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal No.470 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the Ist day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The appeal still remains in the defect list. But we notice that we are in a position to decide the appeal immediately in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, we are taking up the appeal for hearing and disposal. 2. The acquisition of property was in Kazhakoottam Village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5.4.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,380/-. Under the impugned judgment the reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs.14,794/- by granting a nominal increase. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the finding of the learned subordinate judge regarding the market value is based on the evidence which is available on record. We notice that the total stakes involved in this appeal is not much. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/