IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 2226 of 2008() AND C.O. NO.75 OF 2009 -------------------------- LAR.153/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. S.SHEILA, TC 1/1507, PAZHAYA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, ALONG WITH CO NO. 75 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. No. 2226 of 2008 B & Cross Objection No.75 of 2009 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This case pertains to acquisition of land in Pettah village for the purpose of Thiruvananthapuram Airport pursuant to 4(1) notification published on 04-02-1999. The Land Acquisition Officer included a portion of the property in Category 4 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.78,743/- per Are. The balance portion was included in Category 5 and awarded the land value at the rate of Rs.39,900/-. The reference court, on the basis of the evidence that came on record, would refix the land value at a uniform rate Rs.2,97,600/- per Are. It is brought to our notice by the learned senior Government Pleader that this Court has finally approved land value for properties which were included in Category 2 at Rs.1,50,000/-. The argument of the government pleader is that the present property, which is in Category 4, cannot be awarded more than that rate. LAA.2226/08 : 2 : 2. Resisting the above submissions, it is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent cross objector that the property under acquisition is eligible to be included in Category 1. The learned counsel submitted that the cross objector did not get sufficient opportunity to take out a commission. The counsel pleaded that opportunity be given. 3. The learned Government Pleader drew our attention to our own judgment in L.A.A.No.2225/08 and Cross Objection 51/09. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in case this Court is inclined to give an opportunity as requested by the counsel for the cross objector, stringent conditions, as is done in that judgment, have to be imposed. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, we are of the view that an opportunity can be given to the cross objector for proving that the property under acquisition is eligible to be included in Category 1, imposing suitable conditions. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and the LAR is remanded to the court below. The court below is directed to consider the LAA.2226/08 : 3 : application for issuance of commission, if any, filed by the claimant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and appoint an Advocate Commissioner at the cost of the claimant. The court will afford opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to and will pass revised judgment early and at any rate within five months of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the above order will become operative only subject to the following conditions. (i) The claimant respondent pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Kerala Mediation Centre within ten days and produce receipt before the reference court. (ii) If under the revised judgment the claimant becomes eligible for market value exceeding Rs.1,80,000/- per Are, such excess compensation exceeding Rs.1,80,000/- will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 18-12-2007 till the date of the revised judgment to be passed by the reference court. We are not inclined to order refund of the court fee LAA.2226/08 : 4 : paid on the memorandum of cross objection to the claimant since to a considerable extent the claimant is responsible for the order of remand. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks