IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 LA.App..No.1542 of 2002 (A) --------------------------------- LAR.1/1989 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/ADD.RESPONDENT 2 --------------------------------------------------------- 1. KARUNAKARAN, JAYA BHAVAN, MELATHUMALA RANDAMADA VILLAGE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. B.SAROJAM W/O. KARUNAKARAN, JAYA BHAVAN MELATHUMALA, RANDAMADA VILLAGE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.IYPE, SC, KSHB FOR R3 SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI FOR R1 SRI.T.R.RAJEEV FOR R1 SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1542 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Sri.T.S.Radhakrishna Pillai, the learned counsel for the party respondent seeks adjournment. But having gone through the impugned judgment and having considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and having taken into account the market value of the property under acquisition at the relevant time with respect to other cases already decided by this Court, we are of the view that the enhancement granted under the impugned judgment is not excessive. In fact, this was one of the cases which were posted before the Adalath for settlement. Settlement could not materialise due to absence L. A. A. No.1542 of 2002 -2- of respondent/claimant. If the respondent/ claimant was present before the court there was every likelihood of the case being settled at the Adalath. As we do not find any warrant for interference, we confirm the impugned award and dismiss the appeal. However, we direct the execution court to explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties before coercive process is issued by directing the parties to deposit and receive the total amount due under the decree as on 25/05/02, the date of filing of the appeal within a reasonable time. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-