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 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No.1083 of 2000 (A) -------------------------------- LAR. NO.79/87 OF ADDL. SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS: --------------------------------- 1. SUBAIDA BEEVI, MANAKKATTUKARA VEEDU, KOYIVILA, VADAKKEKKARA, THEVALAKKARA. 2. BEEVI KUNJU, KOLLAKARAZHIKATHU, THEKKUMKARA, MAYYANAD. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1083 of 2000 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal remains defective due to non- completion of service of notice on the respondent. In fact, applications are pending seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased original claimant and also for setting aside the abatement caused in the matter of impleadment. Application for condonation of delay is also pending. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment in this case which pertains to acquisition of land in Thevalakkara village in Karunagappally thaluk. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.36,044/- fixing compensation for L. A. A. No.1083 of 2000 -2- 4.75 Ares of land on land value basis and compensation for the balance extent of 4.40 Ares by method of capitalisation of income. Land value was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.2518/- per Are. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on Ext.A2 document duly proved by PW2 and re-fixed the land value at Rs.4940/- per Are. It is seen from the impugned judgment that from the total compensation arrived at as above, the learned Subordinate Judge has deducted the proportionate land value for 4.40 Ares. 3. In this memorandum of appeal, the Government challenges re-fixation of land value as well as the non-deduction of the amount which was L. A. A. No.1083 of 2000 -3- paid originally as value of improvements. As for the challenge against re-determination of market value of the land, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the correct market value of the land is based on acceptable legal evidence. According to us, the market value of the land now arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment is more or less the correct market value of the land at the relevant time. 4. As for the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the learned Subordinate Judge should have deducted the value which had been awarded for the improvement which existed on the property, we notice merit in the above submission. We are of the view that the non-deduction of the value of L. A. A. No.1083 of 2000 -4- improvements is the result of an accidental slip or omission on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge while delivering the judgment. It is open to the appellant to move the learned Judge himself by filing appropriate application under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for corrections of the judgment. We permit the Government to move such applications. If any such application is filed by the appellant/Government before the Reference Court within two months from today, the learned Judge will dispose of that application in accordance with law with notice to the legal heirs of the claimant or the Advocate who appeared for the deceased claimant who is prepared to take notice. 5. Subject to the above observations, this appeal L. A. A. No.1083 of 2000 -5- is dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-