IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 LA.App..No. 736 of 2006(D) -------------------------- LAR.359/1996 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN. RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------------------- JAGATHAMMA, AJITHA, T.C.43/1187, MUTTATHARA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 736 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Thiruvananthapuram in LAR 359/96. The subject matter relates to the acquisition of 1.53 Ares of land in Sy.No.2610/3-25 of Muttathara village for the use of the Thiruvananthapuram Air Port. Notification was published in 1991, award was passed in 1993 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.29,617/- per Are. It is against that decision the reference was preferred. In the land acquisition Court the claimant's mother was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. Exts.R1 and R2 were marked on the side of respondents. It is deposed by AW1 that the acquired property is situated on the side of main road and there are educational institutions and commercial institutions within a reasonable distance. She had also submitted that one Haridasan's property was sold for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-. Ext.A2 L.A.A. 736 OF 2006 -2- is the copy of the judgment in LAR 224/96. It is submitted that the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A2 are comprised in the very same survey number and the period of notification is also almost the same. The land acquisition Court held that the property involved in the present case and in Ext.A2 are same in nature and thereafter adopted the value given in that case as the value for the present case also. There are no materials to show that the said finding is wrong and AW1 has clearly deposed about the proximity of the land, situation of the land and accessibility of the land and therefore I do not find any mistake committed by the Land Acquisition Court in adopting the land value given under Ext.A2 judgment. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-