IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 590 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.51/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT IN LAR NO.51/07: -------------- SASIDHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, KADIYAKONAM, CHITHRA NAGAR, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.M.J.INDUJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2. CHIEF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ROSE MIACHAEL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A..No. 590 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is the appellant. His property in Peroorkada village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 22/4/2004 for the purpose of expansion programme of composite group and IISU of ISRO. The LAO included the property in category E and awarded the appellant land value at the rate of Rs.20,687/- per Are. The Reference Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, would refix the land value at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per Are. 2. Various grounds are raised in this appeal urging that the market value redetermined by the Reference Court is inadequate. Sri.Lal George, learned counsel for the appellant would draw our attention to the various judgments of this court in L.A.A. LAA.No.590/2011 2 Nos.411/2010, 355/2010, 1136/2010 and 1140/2010 and L.A.A. No.273/2011. As regards the judgments in L.A.A. Nos.411/2010 and 273/2011, the learned Counsel submitted that the properties in those two cases were kept in the same category as the property under acquisition in the present case. Hence, the learned counsel requested that those two judgments be followed and the market value be refixed at Rs.2,33,145/- 3. Smt.Rose Michael learned Government Pleader would oppose the request of the counsel for the appellant. According to her, on the basis of the evidence, which was available on record, the learned Sub Judge has given the maximum compensation. But the judgments in L.A.A. No.411/2010 and 273/2011 were not before the learned Sub Judge. It is for the appellant to prove the comparability between the lands under acquisition and the lands covered by those two judgments. At best, the LAR be remanded, so submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that if we proceed to decide the issue finally, it is likely that prejudice will be caused to the LAA.No.590/2011 3 requisitioning authority and to the Government. Hence we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R. No. 51/2007 to the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for fresh decision. It is open to the appellant to adduce further evidence including the judgments relied on by him before this court. If the appellant adduces further evidence, the Reference Court shall afford opportunity to the Government and the requisitioning authority to adduce counter evidence. Revised award will be passed on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which comes on record. As the appellant is trying to take advantage of the judgments of this court passed much later than the impugned award of the Reference court, we are inclined to impose condition for protecting the interest of the State and the Requisitioning Authority. It is, therefore, ordered that if under the revised award to be passed by the Reference Court, the claimant/appellant becomes eligible for enhanced value over and above what is awarded to him under the impugned award, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest under Section 28 of the Act during the period from 15/7/2008 till this date i.e. LAA.No.590/2011 4 11/11/2011. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk