IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 113 of 2011() ------------------------- (L.A.R. NO.200/2009 OF SUB COURT, THALASSERY) APPELLANT/5TH CLAIMANT: -------------- M.N.RAMACHANDRAN MANAT HOUSE, DHARMADAM PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS NO.1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. SMT. KAMALAKSHI, KOTTOYODAN AISWARYA,PURAKKALAM, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 643. 2. CHANDRAN E, BODHI, MANATHERI KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 643. 3. SURENDRAN E.K, THUNDIYIL VEEDU MODAPPATHUR, CHITTARIPARAMBA 670 643. 4. THE SECRETARY KUTHUPARAMBA, MUNICIPALITY 670 643 KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR 670 001. 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (NH) THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 101. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 113 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The 5th claimant is in appeal being aggrieved by an order of the Reference Court by which the Reference under Section 31(2) was answered by directing release of a total amount of Rs.11,73,240/- out of the total amount of Rs.26,66,920/- under deposit to the appellant. According to the appellant, he ought to have been awarded exactly 50% i.e. Rs.13,33,460/-. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised and it is claimed that the appellant is entitled for exactly 50% of the total amount under deposit. But a reading of the impugned judgment will show that the appellant claimed right over the property under acquisition by virtue of Exts.B1 and B2 assignment deeds. Under Ext.B1 what is assigned to the appellant is 36 cents of wet land and under Ext.B2 what is assigned to him is 30 cents in Survey No. 85/3A. We notice that the learned Subordinate Judge was accepted Exts.B1 and B2. What we notice further is that the appellant did not want to L.A.A.No.113/2011 2 cross examine the 3rd respondent claimant who had filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination under which it was stated that the appellant is to be released a sum of Rs.11,73,240/-. It does not appear to us that any mistake has been committed by the court below in quantifying the amount which is correctly due to the appellant. If the appellant still believes that some apparent mistake has been committed by the court below in quantifying the amount due to the appellant, it is always open to the appellant to move the learned Subordinate Judge by appropriate application for correction of the mistake. Subject to the above observation,we dismiss this appeal in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk