IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1221 of 2003 (A) --------------------------------------- LAR.90/1998 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------------- PALAKKAL AYISHA, W/O MUHAMEDKUTTY, SHAHINA MANZIL, CHIRAYIL P.O., KONDOTTY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT AIRPORT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SMT.AMMINIKUTTY GOVT. PLEADER (SR.) SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1221 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. His land was acquired for the purpose of the expansion of the runway of Calicut Airport pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 15/11/93. A portion of the property was included in Tak No.4 while another portion was included in the Tak of Wetlands. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the learned Subordinate Judge did not grant any enhancement to the claimant on the reason that the evidence adduced by the claimant did not justify any such enhancement. 2. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the common judgment of this Court in L.A.A.911/03. We find that under the common judgment, the market value of lands included in Tak Nos.1 to 8 have been re-fixed by this Court. But the common judgment does not pertain to wetlands. It is requested that on the basis of the common judgment, the market value of the lands acquired in this case be re-fixed. 3. The counsel for the Requisitioning Authority seeks time. We L. A. A. No.1221 of 2003 -2- are not inclined to grant time as the issue is at least to a certain extent covered by the common judgment. We feel that the proper thing to be done in this case is to remand the matter to the Reference Court. Hence, we set aside the judgment and decree and remand the LAR to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri for a fresh decision. That court will grant opportunity to the appellant to adduce further evidence. Appellant can rely on all relevant matters. However, we are not inclined to grant the above relief to the appellant without imposing conditions. Hence, the appeal is decided in the following terms:- The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and LAR.90/98 is remanded subject to the following conditions:- a) The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from today and produce receipt. b) The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the Requisitioning Authority also through their Advocate in this Court within the same time limit. c) Enhanced compensation, if any, to be awarded to the appellant under the revised judgment will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 05/02/03 till this date. L. A. A. No.1221 of 2003 -3- Parties will appear before the Reference Court on 16/03/11. The Reference Court will pass revised award after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence within two months of the court re- opening after summer vacation. The Registry will re-fund only 60% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memo. The appellant will remit the entire balance court fee, if any, within two weeks from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- Condition No.c) specified in page 2 of the judgment dated 25/02/2011 in L.A.A.1221/2003 is deleted vide order dated 23/03/2011 in I.A.949/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)