IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1032 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.187/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. VALLATHY, W/O.CHATHAN, RANAYEDATHU VEED,CHERIYA VAPPALASSERI COLONY, ANGAMALY SOUTH (PO)ALUVA TALUK. 2. PARVATHY W/O. KARAPPAN KUNJAPPAN, MEETHEDAMPARAMBU,NAYATHODU ,P.O.ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY NEDUMABASSERY,BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1032 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. In this appeal preferred by the claimants the issue raised is regarding the correctness of the compensation payable for the structures that existed on the property under acquisition. We had occasion to decide a similar appeal LAA. No. 752 of 2009. As in that case, here also the requisitioning authority had preferred LAA. No. 71 of 2003 against the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. The appeal by the requisitioning authority related not only to the enhancement in land value but also to the correctness of the compensation given for the structures which existed on the property. This court by judgment dated 22-10-2007 allowed the appeal to the extent it related to land value. As far as building value is concerned, the appeal was dismissed. The present appellants were parties to that LAA. No. 1032/09 - 2 - appeal. The present appellants did not lodge cross objection to the question of the correct compensation payable for the structures. The judgment in that appeal has become final. We are of the view that the present appeal filed years thereafter is not maintainable, especially since it is brought to our notice that the execution court has recorded full satisfaction of the decree passed in this case on the basis of the appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority. Appeal is rejected as not maintainable. Refund the court fee paid on the appeal memo to Sri. N.Anilkumar, counsel for the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-