IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1257 of 2007(D) --------------------------- LAR.143/1994 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.2 -------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.BHANUMATHY AMMA, SARASWATHY BAI, PULIPARA VILAKATHU VEEDU, ATTIPRA. 2. THE MANAGER, ELECTRONICS TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. 1257 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice on the first respondent is not completed. On examining the merits of the matter, it is seen that the case pertains to the acquisition of 7.45 Ares of land for the purpose of Techno Park in Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 23.7.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted land value at the rate of Rs.4900/- per Are and Rs.1299/- per Are respectively for the two categories involved in this case. The reference court would refix the land value at Rs.9207/- and Rs.3000/- per Are respectively. The reference court relied on Ext.A1 judgment in L.A.R No. 114/1994. The court noticed that property involved in Ext.A1 were included in category No.10 and not in the category to which the acquired properties in this case belongs. However, what the court did was to give proportionate increase relying on Ext.A1. According to me, approach of the learned subordinate judge was L.A.A. No. 1257/2007 2 reasonable. After all Ext.A1 property and acquired property were acquired for the very same purpose under the very same notification. The properties were situated in the same village itself. The only question which should be decided is whether Ext.A1 has attained finality. The Registry reports that Ext.A1 has attained finality in the sense that no appeal has been preferred against Ext.A1. In view of the finality attained by Ext.A1, there is no warrant in interfering with the judgment of the reference court. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk