IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 LA.App..No. 346 of 2010(B) ------------------------------- (LAR.125/1999 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA) .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KRALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & R2 ----------------------------------------- 1. KOCHUKUNJU,CHIRAMEL VEETTIL,PALLIPPAD SOUTH MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE. 2. THRESIA KOCHUKUNJU,CHIRAMEL VEETTIL, PALLIPPAD SOUTH MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE. 3. NTPC, KAYAMKULAM R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.618 OF 2010 & L.A.A.No.346 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is filed by the State with an application to condone delay. While we are satisfied that the delay has been attempted to be explained, it has to be remembered that the appeal by the State is in relation to an acquisition made at the instance of the second respondent which was the requisitioning authority. The National Thermal Power Corporation is stated to have filed an appeal, which happened to be dismissed on the premise that the State has filed an appeal. We have, therefore, examined the merits of the matter. There is no controversy that Annexure A1 judgment in LAR 1/98 was relied on by the court below. After hearing the evidence of the claimant as AW1, there is no contra-evidence, either documentary or oral. The total extent involved in the acquisition is 25.20 Ares of wet land in Sy.No.325/14 of Pallippad village, for the purpose of the NTPC. LAA.346/10 2 We find that the land value initially fixed at Rs.735/- per Are was enhanced by Rs.6,265/-. There is no ground of appeal as the said amount has been fixed against the enhancement reflected by LAR 1/98. The comparable nature of the land involved in LAR 1/98 and the land in the case from which this appeal arises is not in serious dispute. It is also submitted that the appeal against Annexure A1 award has been dismissed. We find no ground to hold that this appeal by the State merits admission. The appeal fails. The C.M.Application and the appeal are, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.15/09.