IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1347 of 2008(B) -------------------------- LAR.47/1998 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------ P.ABDULKHADER, THEKKEPURAM, POOCHAKKAD, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DT. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): REFERRING OFFICER ------------------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD. SR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1347 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant who is not satisfied by the re- fixation of the market value for the total compensation payable for his properties in Chittari village which were acquired for the purposes of Bekal Resort Development Corporation (The Bekal Tourism Project) for short BRDC is the appellant. Several grounds challenging the adequacy of the market value determined by the Reference Court under the impugned judgment have been raised. Some of the grounds are attractive. Moreover, certified copy of the judgment in LAR.3/2000 by the same learned L. A. A. No.1347 of 2008 -2- Subordinate Judge is sought to be produced as an additional item of evidence in this appeal. Annexure- A2 judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1004/03 is also relied on. 2. We have heard Sri.Subhash Syriac, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent. Even though arguments were addressed before us by both sides touching the merits of the matter, we are not inclined to examine the merits of the matter. We notice that the requisitioning authority/BRDC was not a party before the Reference Court nor is a party before this Court. We set aside the judgment and decree under reference on that reason and remand the LAR to the Reference Court. The Reference Court will implead BRDC as an additional L. A. A. No.1347 of 2008 -3- respondent in the LAR case. Once the application in that regard is filed by the appellant after impleading BRDC, that court will afford opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. It is open to the appellant to rely on the judgments produced by him before this Court in the proceedings before the Reference Court. The Reference Court will complete the enquiry and pass the revised judgment at its earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. While passing the revised judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge will have due regard to the order of this Court in C.M.Application1427/08 which is to the effect that during the period of 2946 days mentioned in that order, the claimant will not be entitled for interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land L. A. A. No.1347 of 2008 -4- Acquisition Act. Such a direction will be incorporated in the revised judgment and decree. Since the order of remand has been necessitated to the certain extent due to the fault of the appellant himself, we are not inclined to order refund of full court fee. Registry will however, refund half of the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to Sri.Subhash Syriac, the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This appeal is allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-