IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No.999 of 2009(D) ------------------------------- LAR.292/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS: --------------------------------- 1. ASOKAN, S/O.LATE K.P.DAMU KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 2. UTHAMAN N S/O.LATE K.P.DAMU, KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 3. PURUSHOTHMAN, S/O. LATE K.P.DAMU KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 4. MOHANAN.V, S/O. LATE K.P.DAMU KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 5. UDAYAN, S/O. LATE K.P.DAMU KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. LAA.999/09 -2- 6. SAROJINI .N, D/O. LATE K.P.DAMU KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 7. VASANTHA, D/O. LATE K.P.DAMU KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 8. KANCHANA, D/O.LATE K.P.DAMU, KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 9. UMA.V, D/O.LATE K.P.DAMU, KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 10. VIJAYI.V, D/O.LATE K.P.DAMU, KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, PO KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 11. DEVARAJAN, S/O LATE K.P.DAMU, KUNIMMAL PARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST PANNIYAM, P.O. KUNDUCHIRA, THALASSERY. 12. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R-12 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.999 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The appeal is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice is not completed on R4, R5 and R11 who are reported to be out of India. But we notice that the other claimants/ respondents have been served with notice. We also notice that all the claimants/ respondents belong to the same family and were representing through the same Advocate. According to us, since the fellow respondents are served, there is substantial representation for R4, R5 and R11. The appeal need not be treated as defective. L. A. A. No.999 of 2009 -2- Having gone through the impugned judgment, we find that reliance placed on Ext.A2 judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge was justified. Ext.A2 was in respect of the same acquisition. It is brought to our notice that many of the judgments covered by Ext.A2 common judgment have not been appealed against. Thus, to a great extent Ext.A2 has attained finality. We also notice that the total stakes involved in this appeal is not much. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal any longer. This appeal is dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-