IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 1067 of 2007() ------------------------------------- (AGAINST L.A.R. NO.62 OF 2002, ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM) APPELLANT: CLAIMANTS: ---------------------------------- 1. KUNJUKUTTY AMMA SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, KALLUVETTAN KUZHIYIL VEEDU, NEERAVIL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SREEDEVI AMMA, KALLUVETTAN KUZHIYIL VEEDU, NEERAVIL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. KAMALADEVI AMMA, KALLUVETTAN KUZHIYIL VEEDU,NEERAVIL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.1067 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard. Admitted. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent. Appeal itself is heard and disposed of. 2. An extent of 0.05.60 ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.434/22 of Trikkadavoor Village was acquired for a public purpose. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer the appellants filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement. The matter was referred to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. Appellants failed to appear on the date on which the case was posted for trial. Learned Sub Judge considered the materials on record and found that the compensation awarded to the appellants was fair and reasonable and confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging that decree and judgment this appeal is filed. 2. According to the appellants on receipt of the notice they entrusted the case bundle and records to a lawyer to conduct the case but on account of fault of the clerk of the Advocate the vakkalath was not filed before the court. It is averred that son of the second appellant was a cancer patient and appellants 2 and 3 were attending him and as such they could not meet the counsel. It was also averred that they entrusted the first appellant to conduct the case and on account of LAA No.1067/2007 2 old age and other ailments she also failed to attend the court. Considering all aspects of the matter I am of the view that it is only just and proper to give another opportunity to the appellants to conduct the case on its merits. For that purpose the case has to go back. In the result, appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge in L.A.R.No.62/2002 are hereby set aside. L.A.R.No.62/2002 is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties shall appear before the court below on 17.3.2008. Since the appeal is allowed and remanded on a preliminary point it is not necessary to recover the balance court fee. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks