IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 1252 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.283/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT 2 ------------------------------------ 1. R.PRASANNA KUMARI, CHETTIKKARI, PRESANNA BHAVAN, KAZHAKKUTTOM. 2. ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY PARKS(KERALA) KARIAVATTOM.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. 3119/2007 IN L.A.A.1252/2007 DISMISSED 10.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A.NO. 1252 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader Sri.Basanth Balaji for admission of this appeal, which pertains to the acquisition of 29.20 ares of land comprised in R.S. No.413/6 of Kazhakkuttom village pursuant to notification under Section 4 (1) dated 5.4.1994 for the purpose of the Electronics Techno park. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,644/- per Are which was enhanced to Rs.15,173/- by the reference court relying on Ext. A2 judgment. The learned sub judge noticed that Ext.A2 and the properties under the Acquisition were covered by the very same Section 4 (1) notification. What the the Land Acquisition Court did was to give proportionate enhancement to the acquired properties taking into account the category difference between the properties covered by Ext.A2 judgment and the acquired properties. 3. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that Ext.A2 has become final in the sense that the Government did not prefer any appeal against Ext.A2. Having regard to the finality attained by Ext.A2 L.A.A>No.1252/2007 2 judgment and the principles underlying under Section 28A of the Act, I do not find any infirmity about what the learned subordinate judge has done. Accordingly, this L.A.A. is dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk