IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 33697 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE KERALA (ADAK),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY,SC,ADAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHEHABUDEEN, AMEER MANZIL KURAKKANNI, VARKKALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAID ALI MOHAMMED YOOSEF RAYARU MADOM, CHERUKUNNAM VARKKALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SPECIAL TAHZILDAR(LA) FOR ADDL.LA UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP 33697/02 ORDER ON CMP NO.56897 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO.33697 OF 2002 DISMISSED. 24.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.4.2001 IN LAR 6/97 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF DECREE DATED 30.4.2001 IN LAR 6/97 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No.33697 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th June, 2008 JUDGMENT This Original Petition filed by the Executive Director, ADAK, the requisitioning authority for the acquisition in question, is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice to respondents 1 and 2, the claimants, has not been completed. It is seen that though an order was passed by this court on 6.3.2003 to issue fresh notice to respondents 1 and 2 by affixture in their last known addresses, process for complying with that order has not been remitted so far though several chances in that regard were given. The ground on which the petitioner impugns Exts.P1 and P2, judgment and decree respectively of the reference court is fairly strong. The ground is that being requisitioning authority it was obligatory on the part of the court to have issued notice to the petitioner also and thereby enabled the petitioner also to adduce evidence against the claim for enhancement. However, I am not inclined to grant further time to the petitioner for completing service of notice in this O.P. where I am informed that the 2nd respondent is already dead and gone. This is because I find that in LAA No.178/03, an appeal preferred by the Government obviously for advancing the interest of the petitioner, a O.P.No.33697/02 - 2 - Division Bench of this court dismissed L.A.A.No.178/03 finding that the enhancement granted by the reference court is quite reasonable. The acquisition was in Varkala village pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the year 1996 and as against the land value of Rs.26,491/- per Are awarded by the land acquisition officer, the reference court refixed the land value at Rs.36,148/-. Since the refixation of land value at that rate by the reference court has been approved by a Division Bench of this court, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served from the petitioner's point of view by prosecuting this O.P. further. I also feel, having gone through the impugned judgment that the approach of the reference court was quite reasonable and the refixation of market value cannot be said to be improper. The Original Petition will stand rejected. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE