IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No.872 of 2003 (C) ------------------------------ LAR.23/1997 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): NOT PARTY IN LAR --------------------------------------- THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL AIRPORTS DIVISION, CALICUT AIRPORT P.O., CALICUT AIRPORT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ 1. O.P.NAFEESA,D/O. O.P.BEERANKUTTY VAIDYAR MELANGADI, P.O.KONDOTTY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.872 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal is coming up for admission. But we notice that delay caused in the matter of filing the appeal was condoned with notice to the first respondent/claimant. In fact, the first respondent did not enter appearance in response to the notice sent to him on the delay petition. We are of the view that it is not necessary to issue notice to the first respondent again regarding the appeal. 2. The one ground which is prominently raised by the appellant/Requisitioning Authority is that the Requisitioning Authority which is a necessary party was never made a party to the proceedings before the L. A. A. No.872 of 2003 -2- court below. The above ground is strong and is supported by the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. The ground, therefore, should be upheld. Under the above circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R.23/97 to the Sub Court, Manjeri. The appellant is directed to file an application before the Sub Court, Manjeri seeking its impleadment in L.A.R.23/97. If application for impleadment is filed by the appellant within one month from today, such application will be allowed by the Sub Court and the appellant will be impleaded as additional supplemental second respondent in the L.A.R. The Reference Court will post the LAR for evidence and will give opportunity to all parties to adduce evidence. Revised judgment shall be passed on the basis of the entire evidence which L. A. A. No.872 of 2003 -3- comes on record. 3. This appeal is allowed by way of remand. Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memo to the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-