IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 1375 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.147/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPL.TAHSILDAR (LA), ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. SCARIA ANNAMMA, KURIALLOOR VEETTIL, VENMONY. 2. SCARIA MATHEW, KURIALLOOR VEETTIL, VENMONY. 3. SCARIA THOMAS, KURIALOOR VEETTIL, VENMONY. 4. SCARIA, KURIALLOOR VEETTIL, VENMONY. 5. SCARIA KURUVILA, KURIALLOOR VEETTIL, VENMONY. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3420 OF 2007 IN L.A.A.NO.1375 OF 2007 DISMISSED. 10.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1375 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of 3.90 Ares of land in Venmony village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 14.1.1986 for the purposes of Pamba Irrigation Project. As against the land value of Rs.2648/- per Are paid by the land acquisition officer, the reference court on the basis of evidence enhanced the same and refixed the land value at Rs.5000/- per Are. The reference court had apart from other evidence Ext.C1 Commissioner's report and the testimony of one of the claimants, A.W.1. There was no counter evidence at all on the side of the Government. It is seen that it is a common judgment which is passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in 11 cases and I am informed that appeal has been preferred by the Government only in the present case. In other words, the common judgment has attained finality in so far as the same pertains to the other 10 cases. Moreover, on going through the judgment under appeal, I am of the view that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite reasonable. It cannot be said that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken irrelevant matters into consideration. The land value fixed is LAA No.1375/07 - 2 - also appears to be reasonable. According to me, no useful purpose will be served from the point of view of the Government in condoning the delay of 1047 days in filing the appeal. The delay petition, C.M.Application No.1596 of 2007 will stand dismissed and the appeal is rejected. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE