IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 514 of 2010() ------------------------------------ LAR.47/1998 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER,THEKKEPURAM HOUSE, POOCHAKKAD, KEEKAN,KASARAGODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): REFERRING OFFICER AND REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGODE AT KANHANGAD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,BEKAL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PALAMUKKU PO, BEKAL. R1 BY SPL.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA. No.514 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The claimant is in appeal. His property in Chittari Village was acquired for the purposes of Bekal Tourism Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2182/- per cent. Before the Reference Court the appellant relied mainly on Exts.A6 Land Acquisition Officer's award, Ext.A7 court award and Ext.A8 yet another court award. In Ext.A6 award of the Land Acquisition Officer it is stated that the market value of the land is awarded at the rate of Rs.7194/- per cent. The reference Court took the view that it is by a mistake that the Land Acquisition Officer has noted that the land value is being awarded at the rate of Rs.7194/- per cent. Having gone through Ext.A6 we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge's view that the rate of Rs.7194/- per cent mentioned in Ext.A6 is the result of a mistake committed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct. But as rightly submitted by Sri.Subhash Syriac Ext.A6 and A7 are court awards passed on the basis of references under section 18 LAA.514/2010 2 with reference to Ext.A6. Copies of A7 and A8 were placed before us. 2. On going through Exts.A7 and A8 it is seen that the market value of the land has been refixed by the court at Rs.7194/- per cent. Scrutiny of these judgments will show that the notifications were two years subsequent to the notification in the present case. But the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer even two years subsequent to the notification under section 4(1) in the present case was lesser than what is awarded as land value in the present case. It appears to us that a refixation of land value under Exts.A7 and A8 can have some bearing on determining the value of the land under acquisition. In other words after making proper deductions for passage of time from the land value awarded under Exts.A7 and A8 ( if Exts.A7 and A8 have become final) as claimed by the appellant, it may be possible for the court to fix the value of the land under acquisition in this case. Both sides agreed that the LAR can be remitted back to the Reference Court so that the correct implications of Ext.A7 and A8 on the market value of the land under acquisition in this case can be considered by the court LAA.514/2010 3 below. We are therefore inclined to remit the matter to the court below. We set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and remand the LAR back to the court below. Reference court is directed to reconsider the probative value of Exts.A7 and A8 in the matter of determining the market value of the land under acquisition in this case. Both sides can be permitted to adduce further evidence. The court below shall pass a revised award after verifying whether appreciating Exts.A7 and A8 have become final. Revised award shall be passed by the court below at the earliest, at any rate within 4 months of parties entering appearing before the court below. 3. We are however inclined to impose conditions for giving benefit of remand to the appellant as we notice that there was lethargy on the part of the appellant-claimant in adducing right evidence at the right time before the court below. Hence it is ordered that under the revised award if the appellant become eligible for more compensation that what is presently given, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period of 14.10.2010 to 14.7.2011. The court shall also LAA.514/2010 4 take into account the conditions imposed by this court while passing earlier orders of remand in earlier appeals in this case. There will be a further condition that the court fee presently remitted on the appeal memo (1/3rd) will not be refunded. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.514/2010 5