IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 926 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.297/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- 1. K.GOPAKUMAR, T.C.15/1843, GEETHA BHAVAN, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JAYA S., T.C.40/1297, SREE VIGNESH, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUMAM ,AVADI, KAMRAJ NAGAR, CHENNAI. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR. P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R4 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.926 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Notice is yet to be served on 2nd respondent. But as directed by us learned Government Pleader has already sent a copy of the appeal memorandum to Adv. S. Williams, who was appearing for her before the court below. We find that acknowledgment is received back. Moreover, we find that respondents 1 to 3 were engaging the same Advocate and were pursuing the same contentions. Hence we declare service on 2nd respondent is sufficient. 2. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land for Technopark in Attipra village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dt. 17.12.2003. Our attention is drawn by the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji to the common judgment in LAA.Nos.1332, 1955 and 2478 of 2008 & 13, 88, 44 and 68 of 2009 dt. 8.4.2009. That judgment also pertains to the same acquisition. For the reasons stated in that common judgment the impugned judgment is liable to be L.A.A..926/2009-B 2 interfered with and the LAR to be sent back to the reference court. We set aside the judgment and remand LAR.297/2006 to the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to take a fresh decision in the LAR after affording an opportunity to all parties to adduce whatever further evidence they want to before the reference court. While taking fresh decision that court will have due regard to the observations made by us in the common judgment in LAA.1332/2008 series. Further the Government Pleader or standing counsel for the requisitioning authority will place before the learned Subordinate Judge a copy of that common judgment. Parties are directed to enter appearance before the reference court on 15.3.2010. Learned Subordinate Judge will pass revised judgment within four months thereafter. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb