IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4086 of 2009(J) ------------------------- LAR.89/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINNY THOMAS, S/O. V.J. THOMAS, GENERAL MANAGER, PHILATEX VACHUKUNNIL PVT. LTD., KANALPIRIVU WALAYAR, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND NO.1, KINFRA, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4086 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the Sub Court, Palakkad, in L.A.R.No.89/2006, whereby the petitioner's application for issue of a commission to ascertain the nature of the properties acquired has been rejected. According to the petitioner, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to take out a commission to prove the contentions of the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Sub Judge has passed Ext.P3 order on the following reasons: “6. The point:- LAR 86/2006 is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Claimant herein was served with notice about three years back. The Claimant/Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Many adjournments were given for taking steps. No application was filed by the petitioner for appointing a commissioner for local inspection. This petition is filed only when the reference came up for trial in the special list. The respondents have contended that the petitioner did not take steps in time with the malafide intention to collect interest at higher rates on enhanced compensation. It is evident that the petitioner is adopting delay tactics in order to make unlawful gains. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result this petition is dismissed. Both sides are directed to suffer their respective costs.” 4. Admittedly the petitioner filed the application for issue of commission only when the matter came up in the special list for evidence. In the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity 2 whatsoever in Ext.P3 order. Apart from that, a commission report is only a piece of evidence. The petitioner can prove all matters which he seeks to prove through a commission, by producing other evidence. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge