IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 5 of 2009() ----------------------- LAR.392/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NH-1, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH- DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KAMALAM, PADINJARE PALLIYONA HOUSE, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. JAYARAJAN, PADINJARE PALLIYONA HOUSE, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. SASIDHARAN, PADINJARE PALLIYONA HOUSE, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 4. MANOJ KUMAR, PADINJARE PALLIYONA HOUSE, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.5 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Notice sent to the 3rd respondent is yet to be returned after service. But we find that the 3rd respondent is a son of the 1st respondent and the brother of the other respondents and all these respondents were appearing through the very same Advocate before the trial court. We are of the view that there is every justification for declaring that service on 3rd respondent is complete, even apart from Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules. Accordingly we declare that the 3rd respondent is also duly served. 2. Eventhough service on all the respondents is completed, none of the claimants/respondents have entered appearance before this court for resisting this appeal. This appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Vengeri Village in L.A.A.5/09 2 Kozhikode Taluk for the purpose of Calicut Mini Bye-pass pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 8.8.1993. Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.13,200/- per cent. Reference Court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the land value at Rs.55,000/- per cent. The impugned judgment was a common judgment in as many as 9 L.A.R cases. Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader draws our attention to the judgment of this court in L.A.A.277/09. L.A.A.277/09 was directed against the judgment in L.A.R.12/01, which is one of the 9 cases covered by the impugned common judgment. Learned Government Pleader submits that under the judgment in L.A.A.277/09 this court re-fixed the value of land at Rs.48,000/- per cent. Having gone through the copy of the judgment in L.A.A.277/09 we are of the view that there is justification in following the decision taken by this court under that judgment. Accordingly allowing the judgment and modifying the impugned judgment we re-fix the land value under L.A.A.5/09 3 acquisition at Rs.48,000/- per cent. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The claimants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb