IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 727 of 2009(B) ------------------------- LAR.576/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------------------- SASIKALA, KALATHIL VEEDU,NJAKKANAL, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 727 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Mavelikkara in LAR 576/93. An area of 1.50 Ares of wet land comprised in S.No.877/2-1 and 0.40 Ares of reclaimed dry land comprised in S.No.877/2-2 of Krishnapuram village was acquired for the purpose of doubling the railway line. Initially an award was passed which was taken up in appeal and the matter was remanded back. After remand the court below fixed the value of the wet land at Rs.5,075/- per Are and dry land at the rate of Rs.19,649/- per Are. On the basis of this the claimant was entitled to enhance the value at the rate of Rs.3,625 per Are for the wet land and at the rate of Rs.14,035/- for the dry land. The extent of dry land comes to one cent and that of the wet land comes to about 3.60 cents. So far as the wet land is concerned the land value had been decreased than what was awarded in the L.A.A. 727 OF 2009 -:2:- earlier judgment. So the State cannot have any grievance over the same. As far as the dry land is concerned the extent involved is only one cent which is not worth fighting for decades together for a small sum this side or that side. I have also had gone through the award of the Land Acquisition Court and it had given reasons for awarding the land value. Basically considering the negligible extent of land involved I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Court. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. But it is made clear that this shall not be cited as a precedent in any other case. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-