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 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 317 of 2010(D) ------------------------------- LAR.85/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST CLAIMANT ---------------------------------- B.JAYALEKSHMI, TC 17/1592, CHENKALLOOR, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT 5-D, HEERA GATE, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD,.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE, 2ND RESPONDENT & CLAIMANTS 2 TO 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. P.SUGUNAN, S/O. PACHAN, VELLAR ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, KOVALAM.P.O., THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE. 4. YESODHA, W/O. LATE SREEDHARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM.P.O. 5. MURUKESHAN, S/O. LATE SREEDHARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM.P.O. 6. KUSALAKUMARI, D/O. LATE SREEDHARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM.P.O. LAA.317/10 -2- 7. KUNHUKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE KUNJAN PANICKER NADUTHATTU VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM.P.O. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALIYKULAM,CHATHANNOOR.P.O. 8. LEELAMANI, D/O. CHELLAMMA, NADUTHATTU VEEDU,VELLAR, KOVALAM.P.O. 9. PADMINI, KALAVILA VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM.P.O. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R3,5-9 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.554 of 2010 & L. A. A. No.317 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Heard both sides. The delay stands condoned subject to the following conditions:- 1) The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the contesting respondents either directly or through their counsel Sri.R.Manoj within ten days from today and produce receipt. 2) The appellant will pay an equal amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit and produce receipt. Sri.Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer assures us that both the above amounts will be readily paid. L. A. A. No.317 of 2010 -2- We accept the above submission and take up the appeal for hearing and disposal. 2. The only issue that arises for disposal in this appeal is whether the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court should be released to respondents 2 to 8 alone and not to the first claimant/appellant, is correct. It is conceded before us that as against the award of the court in Section 32 reference which was also simultaneously initiated there was appeal LAA.1189/05 (against LAR.9/98). This Court considering that appeal remitted LAR back to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for taking fresh decision on the question as to how the original compensation should be apportioned. We are of the view that whatever decision taken in LAR.9/98 L. A. A. No.317 of 2010 -3- should apply to the enhanced compensation also. We are therefore of the view that the court below is not justified in directing immediate release of the enhanced compensation under the impugned judgment to respondents 2 to 8 alone before LAR.9/98 is finally disposed of. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent the same pertains to the direction to release the enhanced compensation to respondents 2 to 8 alone. The question as to who, the enhanced compensation should be released will be decided in LAR.9/98 already pending before the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence we are inclined to remand LAR.85/98 also to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram so that that court can consolidate this case with LAR.9/98 and decide the two LARs by a common judgment. L. A. A. No.317 of 2010 -4- Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand LAR.85/98 to the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to consolidate LAR.85/98 with LAR.9/98 and will take a fresh decision on the basis of the observations contained therein. Since the appellant has remitted only 1/3rd of the court fee, we are not inclined to refund that amount since we find that there was some default on the part of the appellant also in not appraising the court below of the situation correctly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-