IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 232 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.364/1996 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ---------------------------------- SRI.S.ASOK KUMAR,ANUVARARMBU VEEDU, MUTTATHARA. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.744/2007 IN L.A. NO.232/2007 DISMISSED 4.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- C.M.Appl. No.329/2007 & L.A.A.NO. 232 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government pertains to the acquisition of 0.50 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.2610/3-20 of Muttathara Village for the purpose of Thriuvananthapuram Airport pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification dated 31.12.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at Rs.29,617/- per Are. The Reference Court relying mainly on Ext.A1 judgment in LAR No.24/1995 re -fixed the land value at Rs.55,020/- per Are. Under Ext.A1 properties were acquired for the very same purpose and in pursuance to the very same section 4 (1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in relying on Ext.A1 judgment for granting enhancement to the respondent. In fact, that is mandate of legislative intendment underlining Section 28A. The Registry reports that though an appeal was preferred against the judgment in LAR No.24/95, this court has dismissed the same. Considering the finality attained by the court in Ext.A1 Judgment, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served from the Government's point of view by condoning the LAA No.232/2007 2 delay and admitting this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal is also consequently rejected. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk