IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 684 of 2007 LAR.NO.272/1998 OF SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT: RESPONDENT STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMED ANZAR RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.2 1. R.RAMABHADRA PRASAD, PANAYIL VEEDU, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY PARKS (KERALA), KARIAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.A.AHAMED THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1428 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A. NO.684 OF 2007 and 1428 OF 2008 and C.M.APPL.NO.838/2007 IN LAA.NO.684/2007 and C.M.APPL.NO.1494/2008 IN LAA.NO.1428/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeals, C.M.Appl.Nos.838 of 2007 and 1494 of 2008, are allowed. 2. L.A.A.Nos.684 of 2007 and L.A.A.No.1428 of 2008 are filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.Nos.272 of 1998 and 271 of 1998 respectively, on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The acquisition is for Techno Park. The claimants sought to place reliance on Exts.A2 document and Ext.A3 judgment in L.A.R.No.282 of 1998. It is seen that the reference court has not accepted Ext.A2 document as such. However, considering Ext.A3 judgment, the reference court found that the property covered by Ext.A3 judgment and the acquired property are similarly placed properties and are acquired by the same notification. Relying on Ext.A3 judgment In L.A.R.No.282 of L.A.A.NOS.684 OF 2007 & 1428 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 1998, the court below granted 30% enhancement. We fully agree with the enhancement granted by the reference court. Thus there is no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The interlocutory applications for stay, namely, I.A.No.1892 of 2007 in L.A.A.No.684 of 2007 and I.A.No.3192 of 2008 in L.A.A.No.1428 of 2008, are also dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/