IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 LA.App..No. 1840 of 2007(D) --------------------------- LAR.184/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- KUNJAVARA, S/O.CHAKKU, MUNDADAN HOUSE, AVANANCODE, ANKAMALY (VIA). BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, NEDUMBASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN R2 BY SR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. ADV.SMT.T.N.GIRIJA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1840 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th August, 2008 JUDGMENT The claimant is the appellant. Even though various grounds have been raised, it was ground No.D and ground No.M which were highlighted before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the appellant, his properties which were the subject matter of LAR No.216/98 were included by the land acquisition officer in the category of dry land with Panchayat road frontage. The appellant's case is that the properties which were the subject matter of LAR No.216/98 as well as the acquired properties in this case were lying contiguously. Relying on the judgment of this court in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala (1967 KLT 1067) and my own judgment in Joseph Cyriac v. State of Kerala [ (2004(3) KLT, Sh. Notes, p. 48 (Case No.66) ] the learned counsel would argue that while the properties involved in LAR No.216/98 are concededly having road frontage, the properties in this case should also have been categorised as properties having road frontage since from the point of view of the appellant both properties belonged to him and were being enjoyed by him as a single holding. Ext.A8 is the title deed pertaining to both the properties and Ext.A8 will certainly support the claim of LAA No.1840/07 - 2 - the appellant that the properties were being enjoyed by him as a single holding. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an application was filed for production of the group sketch and though request was made for comparison of mahazars prepared in this case, the application was closed and the request for a comparison of the mahazars was turned down. 2. Having regard to the principles laid down by this court in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala (supra) and my own view in Joseph Cyriac v. State of Kerala (supra), I feel that the appellant's claim that the acquired properties in this case should have been treated at least as double crop wet lands with road frontage is fairly strong. Therefore, I set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand LAR No.184/98 back to the reference court for reconsideration of the appellant's claim that this property should be included at least in the category of double crop wet lands with road frontage. All the parties, the appellant-claimant, the State as well as the requisitioning authority are permitted to adduce whatever further evidence they are desirous of producing. The mahazars prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer in both the cases should be perused by the court below for appreciating the appellant's contention. Trial will LAA No.1840/07 - 3 - be completed and revised judgment will be passed at the earliest and at any rate within three months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this remand order. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE