IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 303 of 2007() ----------------------------------- LAR.87/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA - REP. BY THE ADDL. GOVT. PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT ------------------------------------- GOURIKUTTY AMMA, PANACHIKULANGARA, PUTHIYAVILA. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.App..No. 303 of 2007 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1000/2007 IN L.A.A. NO.303/2007 DISMISSED 04/12/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 303 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Mavelikkara in LAR 87/94. An area of 1.59 Ares of dry land comprised in R.S.No.115/21 in Kandalloor village was acquired for the purpose of construction of the PIP canal. The Land Acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs.1,439/- per Are. It was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Court to Rs.10429, i.e. the enhanced by Rs.8,990/-. The relied upon judgment is Ext.A1. It is a common award passed in LAR Nos.22 and 23 of 1992. Against these two awards LAA 701/96 and 658/96 were filed and both of them had been dismissed by this Court on 11.2.2003. So Ext.A1 has become final. But the Land Acquisition Court has very specifically found that the Land in question and land in Ext.A1 are situated in different villages and it is also found that the land involved in LAR 37/94 adjoins the road but not L.A.A. 303 OF 2007 -2- the land in LAR 87/94 as well. So the Land Acquisition Court had taken into consideration the lie of the land, the area wherein it is situated the locality and utility of the land and thereafter thought it proper to enhance the land value in LAR 87/94 by 70%. It is also very near one Thachan mukku junction. So considering the entire aspects I find that the Land Acquisition Court has only arrived at a proper decision and therefore the award does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-