IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 998 of 2003(D) -------------------------- ( LAR.NO.131/94 OF SUB COURT, KOLLAM) APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT NO.2: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. AYYAPPAN GOPALAKRISHNAN (DIED) KRISHNA BHAVANAM, PONMANA FROM CHENGASSERIL VEEDU, PANDARATHURUTH, THURAYIL. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARUNAGAPPALLY AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. 3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY TOMY VARGHESE,CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ERNAKULAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4. RETNAYINI KRISHNA BHAVANAM, PONMANA P.O. CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 5. ANIL G. -DO- 6. SUNIL.K.G. -DO- LAA.No.998/03 7. LEENA.R. -DO- 8. LILLY.R. KALATHIL HOUSE THOTTAPPALLY P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 9. LIZY.R. SREE BHAVANAM, PADA SOUTH KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT ( It is recorded vide order dated 14-07-2009 that the first respondent died and the legal heirs are impleaded as additional respondents.) ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 998 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal preferred by the government any longer. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Panmana village for the purpose of construction of a storage depot for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 11-10-1991. The land acquisition officer categorised lands as garden lands and wet lands. For garden lands, he awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 2127/- per Are and for wet lands he awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 514/- per Are. It is seen that this court by common judgment in L.A.A.No.329/05 and other cases disposed of a number of appeals preferred by claimants against rates similar to those granted under the impugned judgment. All those appeals were compromised between the parties upon the requisitioning authority agreeing to pay Rs. 1000/- per cent more than what was awarded by the land acquisition court. LAA.No.1952/02 2 Under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no warrant for interference with the impugned judgment. More over, on going through the impugned judgment, we find that the findings entered therein are based on evidence. For both these reasons, the appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1952/02 2