IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 534 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.522/1994 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT: ----------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.MADHAVI, MADHAVI NIVAS, PATHIYOOR PADINJARE MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. P.ANIRUDHAN,MADHAVI NIVAS, PATHIYOOR PADINJARE MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 3. P.ARJUNAN,MADHAVI NIVAS, PATHIYOOR PADINJARE MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI FOR R2,3 SMT.SABINA JAYAN FOR R2,3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.1571/2207 UB L.A.A. NO.534/2007 DISMISSED 6.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 534 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 6TH day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The Government has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's court, Mavelikkara in L.A.R. No.522/1994. The case pertains to acquisition for the purpose of construction of Eruva Branch Canal of the PIP. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted the oral evidence of the claimant (AW1) and Ext.A1 copy of the judgment in LAR No.52/88. There was no counter evidence on the side of the respondent. 2. Having gone through the judgment, it is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was a judgment in another case pertaining to the very same acquisition project. Reliance placed by the learned judge on Ext.A1 cannot be said to be improper. I am now informed that though the Government had preferred L.A.A. No..129/1991 against Ext.A1 judgment , the same has been dismissed confirming the enhancement granted. Under the above circumstances, I do not think that any useful L.A.A.. 534/2007 2 purpose will be served from the Government's point of view by admitting this appeal. Hence this appeal is dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk