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 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1468 of 2002() -------------------------- LAR.241/1994 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT : 18TH CLAIMANT --------------------------- SUHARBAN BEEVI, CHARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PARAYAKONAM, IRAMBAYIL VEEDU, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.HUSSAIN RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K. BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 1468 Of 2002 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 8, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The only argument that is seriously addressed before us by Sri M.M.Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the acquired property in this case which was included by the land acquisition officer in category F should have been included in category E. The learned counsel relied on the survey sketch which will reveal that the acquired property was lying in between the properties which had been included by the land acquisition officer in category E. The learned counsel is certainly right when he contends that neither in the notes to award nor anywhere else in the records, it is stated as to what was the parameter on the basis of which the land acquisition officer categorised the properties under acquisition in to categories A to F. But, the fact remains that the categorisation stands approved already. L.A.A. 1468 Of 2002 2 2. We have gone through the claim statement filed by the appellant before the reference court. It is seen that apart from challenging the rationale and wisdom of the categorisation done by the land acquisition officer generally, the appellant has not claimed that his property was eligible to be included in the superior category E. In the absence of any such specific claim, we find it difficult to uphold the argument of the appellant for the reason that the same is properly founded. This appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-. L.A.A. 1468 Of 2002 3 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. 1468 Of 2002 JUDGMENT ------------------------------ 8.6.2009