IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 LA.App..No. 133 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.222/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT --------------------- KURIAKOSE S/O. POULOSE, CHAKKANGATTU HOUSE, N.PARAVUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANNAMMA, W/O. POULOSE. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.133 of 2004 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.222/2000 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur. The acquisition is for the purpose of widening National Highway 17 at Paravur Junction. On behalf of the claimant AWs 1 to 3 tendered evidence regarding the lie, location and importance of the locality. He had also taken out a Commission and the report of the Commission is marked as Ext.A2 and Ext.A2 (a) is the plan. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.A.No.52/2001. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no evidence regarding the similarity and comparability of the property covered by Ext.A1 with the acquired property. We are afraid the contention cannot be appreciated. 2. It has come out in evidence that the property covered by Ext.A1 is in fact farther from the town when compared to the acquired property. Further it has to be noted that the property L.A.A. NO.133/2004 -:2:- covered by L.A.A.No.52/2001 and property covered by the acquisition in the present appeal arises out of the same notification and acquired for the same purpose. Still further it is seen that L.A.A.No.52/2001 has been followed by this court in L.A.A.No.220/2001, a case arising out of the same notification and acquired for the same purpose. There is no evidence by the respondents to controvert the evidence tendered on behalf of the claimant regarding the locational advantages to the acquired property. In that view of the matter, particularly in view of the judgment in L.A.A.No.52/2001 we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- L.A.A.No. 133 of 2004 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 2nd January, 2008