IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1352 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.84/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANAT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S)/ CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- 1. PARVATHY AMMA, JANAKI AMMA, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR. 2. JANAKI AMMA, LALITHAMBIKA, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR. 3. THANKAMANI AMMA SHEELA, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR. ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA) FOR R2 & R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 1352 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Edakkad village in Kannur Taluk for the purpose of doubling the railway track pursuant to the notification under section 4(1) dated 18-3-1997. The land acquisition officer granted land value at the rate of Rs. 13,330.52 per Are. Before the reference court, the evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants consisted of the oral testimony of AW1, Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.X1 Commissioner report. Ext.A5 was another case in respect of the acquisition pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification and the awarding officer had granted land value at the same rate as given to the claimants in this case. The claim of the respondents before the reference court was for more amounts than what had been granted under Ext.A5. It was for this purpose that they took out commission. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment relied on the data collected and reported by the commissioner himself to hold that there was justification for granting LAA.No.1352/07 2 to the respondents more than what had been granted to the parties in Ext.A5. The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge, in my opinion was quite reasonable. The Subordinate Judge was certainly justified in following Ext.A5. The only question to be considered is whether Ext.A5 has attained finality. Registry reports that Ext.A5 has attained finality in the sense that no appeal has so far been filed against Ext.A5. Having regard to the finality attained by Ext.A5, I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the reference court. Appeal will stand dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1352/07 2