IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 LA.App..No. 442 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.244/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT IN LAR ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR ------------------------------ K.VIJAYAMMA,MADAMMA THOPPIL, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L.A.A.No.442 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Kollam in L.A.R.No.244/1997. An extent of 1.77 Ares of land in Sy.No.3902/28 of Vadakkevila Village was acquired for the purpose of National Highway. The land was taken possession on 23.3.1990. Reliance was placed on Ext.A2 judgment which is a common judgment in series of cases including L.A.R.No.88/1992. There was an appeal preferred against L.A.R.No.88/1992 which has been numbered as L.A.A.No.129/1999. On a consideration of the entire materials, the appellate court remanded the whole batch of cases for fresh consideration. A perusal of para-8 of the award would reveal that the land in L.A.R.No.88/1992 and the land involved in this case are situated in the very same village and they are acquired for the very same purpose. It is true that the land acquisition court did not accept the value given under Ext.A2, but it was borne in mind and the court also took into : 2 : consideration the difference in time. So it has to be stated that it was in the backdrop of the award in L.A.R.No.88/1992 as well, a decision was taken. Since that judgment has been set aside by the High Court and the matter has been remanded back, I feel that this case also requires interference at the hands of this Court. 2. Therefore, I set aside the award and remit the case back to the same court for fresh consideration in the light of the principles and guidelines given in the connected cases. The parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the land acquisition court on 27.05.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl Judgment dated 5.4.2010 in LAA.No.442/2007 is reviewed vide order dated 4.11.2010 in RP.No.965/2010. Sd/= Registrar (Judicial) : 3 :