IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 616 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.40/2001 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS NO.2: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATTAKUDA SASIKUMAR, S/O.PARVATHY AMMA, "SREELAKSHMI", KOVILAKOMKUNDU, MANJERI. 2. MATTAKUDA SOBHANA, D/O.PARVATHY AMMA, "SREELAKSHMI", KOVILAKOMKUNDU, MANJERI. 3. MATTAKUDA NANDAKUMAR, S/O.PARVATHY AMMA, "SREELAKSHMI", KOVILAKOMKUNDU, MANJERI. 4. SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY. ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R1-2 SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1-2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.616 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is remaining in the defect list on the reason that service of notice is not completed on R3. But we find that R1 and R2 are the siblings of R3 and there is no conflict in interest inter se between R3 and respondents 1 & 2. Moreover, the interest of R3 in the subject matter of the appeal is adequately represented by respondents 1 and 2. The appeal need not be treated as defective and we are straight away taking the appeal for disposal. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We find that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the market value of the property under acquisition is founded on legal L. A. A. No.616 of 2008 -2- evidence. In fact, the learned Subordinate Judge did not rely on any of the documents put in evidence by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced land value. The Land Acquisition Officer had made a deduction of 25% from the value revealed by the basis document. What the court below did was to reduce that deduction to 10%. In our view also, having regard to the importance of the locality where the property is situated, re-fixation of the market value under the impugned judgment from Rs.22,950/- to Rs.27,552/- is quite reasonable. We do not find any warrant for interference at the instance of the Government or the Requisitioning Authority. 3. This appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-