IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 1021 of 2002() -------------------------------- LAR.173/1997 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.R.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ---------------------------------- 1. K. KURIAKOSE, S/O. CHERUCHI, KANJIRAKOTTU, IRIMPANAM. 2. MARIAMMA, D/O. DO. DO. 3. ANNAM, W/O. POULOSE, DO. DO. 4. MARIAM, W/O. ITTOOP, DO. DO. 5. SOSA, W/O. MATHEW, DO. DO. 6. YOHANNA, S/O. POULOSE, KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD. 7. NAITY, W/O. MATHAI, ELARATHPUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, KOZHAPPILLI, KARAMANA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM. 8. BABY, W/O. WILSON, PANACKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM. svs ..........2/-... ...2... L.A.A. NO.1021/2004 9. MOLY, W/O. JOHNY, MELETH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O. 10. SOOSY THOMAS, KANJIRAKOTTU, THEKKEKAVARA, COCHIN PALACE P.O. 11. RAJI, W/O. PHILIP, VADAYATHIL HOUSE, KAIPPANCHERRY, IRIMPANAM. P.O. 12. RAMY, W/O. MATHAI, KOKKATAYIL HOUSE, MAMALA. P.O. 13. K. RENY THOMAS, KANJIRAKKATTU, THEKKEKAVARA, HILL PALACE P.O. 14. SANTHA MATHEW, KANJIRAKKOTTU, IRIMPANAM P.O. 15. DEEPAK MATHEW, DO. DO. 16. DIVYA MARY MATHEW, KANJIRAKKOTTU, IRIMPANAM P.O. 17. IOC, COCHIN MARKETING TERMINAL AT IRIMPANAM, REP. BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN SRI.M.S.PATTALI R17 NU ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SMT. THUSHARA JAMES THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... L.A.A.NO.1021 OF 2002 ................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J: The appeal was posted in the defect list on the reason that service of notice of all the respondents is not complete. In fact the notice which was sent to R3 and R4 were returned with the endorsement that those respondents have expired. It is brought to our notice that the 4th respondent/claimant - Smt. Mariyam died as early as on 8.5.1998. It is thus clear that the impugned award in favour of the above said Mariyam is vitiated in as much as the same is passed in favour of a dead person. In view of the above infirmity which renders the entire impugned award nonest, we are inclined to set aside the same. Accordingly, the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and L.A.R.No.173/1997 is remitted back to the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. The learned Judge is directed to implead the legal representatives of Mariyam - the 4th respondent/claimant and to facilitate passage of a fresh award. We make it clear that we have L.A.A.NO.1021 OF 2002 : 2 : not expressed any opinion on the sufficiency or otherwise of the market value redetermined under the impugned award. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl L.A.A.NO.1021 OF 2002 : 3 : PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. . ............................................ L.A.A.NO.1021 OF 2002 ........................................... 19th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT