IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 LA.App..No. 455 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.21/2004 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, (RAILWAY), TIRUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED, CHERIKKALLIL, KADATHOTTIL, VADANAMKURUSSI AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOZHIKODE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 455 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We don't find any warrant for interference with the judgment which is impugned in this appeal. The property was in Ongallur II Village and the acquisition was for the purpose of doubling of railway track between Shornur – Pattambi Division. Section 4(1) notification was published on 19-8-2002. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4050/- per cent and under the impugned judgment it was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per Are. On going through the impugned judgment we find that it was relying on Ext.A1 sale deed reflecting a land value of Rs.20,000/- per cent and also the judgment of the same court in LAR. No. 22 of 2004 pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification that the learned Sub Judge granted enhancement. The court below -2- did not give the full value reflected in Ext.A1. The court below made a deduction taking into account the lie and nature of this property. It is brought to our notice that the judgment in LAR. No. 22 of 2004 has become final in the sense that no appeal was preferred. On both these reasons the impugned judgment has to be approved. We do so. We dismiss the appeal. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- -3-