IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 301 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.10/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- V.O.OUSEPH, VATHAPPALLIL, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MATHEW S/O.OUSEPH, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC,SC,KSIDC THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 301 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the re-determination of compensation by the reference court. His properties were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 24-1-1997 for the purpose of Industrial Growth Centre at Pallippuram, Cherthala. The properties were included in category - II, i.e., interior dry land having access to the road and was awarded land value at the rate of Rs.11,547/- per Are. The reference court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the land value at Rs.17,298/-. The one ground which is prominently urged by the appellant is that the land acquisition officer as well as the court below went wrong in treating the property under acquisition to be in category No. III, i.e., interior dry land. The argument of Mr. Mathew John was that the property which is subject matter of LAA. LAA. No. 301/11 -2- No. 302 of 2011 (which we are deciding today by another judgment) was lying contiguously with the property under acquisition in the present case. The property in LAA. 302 of 2011 was treated by the L.A. Officer himself to be property having direct frontage of road. On the authority of the judgment of this Court in Sreedharan and others v. State of Kerala, 1967 KLT 1067 and Joseph Cyriac v. State of Kerala, 2004(2) KLJ 667 as the properties in LAA. No. 302 of 2011 and the properties in the present case were lying contiguously the properties in the present case were also to be treated as enjoying the frontage of road. 2. The submission of Mr. Mathew John is opposed very stiffly by Mr. Joby Cyriac, counsel for the requisitioning authority. Mr. Joby Cyriac has placed before us a plan prepared by the requisitioning authority on the basis of the commissioner's report. We have gone through that plan. The plan will show that the corners of these properties are LAA. No. 301/11 -3- just touching each other. It was argued by Mr. Joby Cyriac that it would not have been possible for the appellant to lay a pathway connecting the properties. We are told that movement of vehicles and pedestrians from the property involved in this appeal to the property involved in LAA. No. 302 of 2011 was not possible. 3. We have considered the submissions. We have gone through the commissioner's report. Significantly, the Advocate Commissioner was not examined as a witness. The commissioner's report only says that the properties are touching each other. We feel that for resolving the issue whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the principles laid down in the decisions in Sreedharan and others v. State of Kerala, 1967 KLT 1067 and Joseph Cyriac v. State of Kerala, 2004(2) KLJ 667 it is necessary that the parties adduce more evidence. We are not inclined to afford opportunity to the appellant without imposing conditions. LAA. No. 301/11 -4- 4. The result of the above discussion is that the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. LAR. No. 10 of 2003 is remitted back to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala. The learned Judge is directed to afford opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence for substantiating their rival positions as to whether property involved in this case could be claimed the road frontage through the properties which were involved in LAA. No. 302 of 2011. The appellant can examine the commissioner and any other witness. If the appellant adduces further evidence, the requisitioning authority should also be permitted to adduce further evidence. The parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 22-8-2011. This judgment remanding the LAR to the reference court becomes operative only subject to the following conditions: 1) In case under the revised judgment to be passed by the reference court the appellant becomes eligible for more LAA. No. 301/11 -5- compensation than what is presently awarded, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 27th November 2008 till the date of the revised judgment. 2) The appellant will forfeit 50% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the Government. In other words, only one half of the court fee will be refunded to the counsel for the appellant. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-