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 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1107 of 2009 (B) -------------------------------- LAR.88/2004 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A.), THALASSERY. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. POYILAN MUSTHAFA, S/O. MAMMOOTTY HAJEE, AYSHA MANZIL, PARAMBIL P.O., P.R.NAGAR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KWA, WSP DIVISION, KANNUR. ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1107 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Kolari village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 19/11/01. The property was garden land and the acquisition was at the instance of the second respondent/ Kerala Water Authority. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.31,359/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the only document that was relied on by the claimant was copy of what is described as “Deed No.91/09/00”. Going by the impugned judgment L. A. A. No.1107 of 2009 -2- this document pertains to 30 cents of land and the total consideration paid is Rs.4,14,000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed that this document cannot be relied on as there is no evidence adduced by the party to show that the property covered by this document is similarly situated as the acquired property. After saying so what the learned Judge did was to award the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent which is an amount equal to what is reflected in the document by doing guess work. We are unable to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge. We set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand LAR.88/04 to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery. That court is directed to take a L. A. A. No.1107 of 2009 -3- fresh decision after affording at least one opportunity to both sides for adducing whatever further evidence they want to. Revised judgment will be passed on the basis of the evidence already available and the evidence to be adduced by the parties. Since, the claimant is to blame for not having produced proper documents which can support the impugned judgment, we are inclined to impose a penalty on him. He will not be entitled for interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to be awarded by the Reference Court during the period from 18th December, 2006 till the date of the revised Judgment. Revised judgment will be passed by the court early and at L. A. A. No.1107 of 2009 -4- any rate within four months of that court receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- Judgment dated 10/06/2010 in L.A.A. 1107/2009 is recalled as per order dated 04/10/2010 in R.P. 837/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)