IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 978 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.20/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THANKAM BALAKRISHNAN, VATTEKKATT HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR P.O., ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR-680 615. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.THANKAM BALAKRISHNAN, VATTEKKATT HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR. 3. DAYAPAL, S/O.THANKAM BALAKRISHNAN, VATTEKKATT HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.GENERAL, THRISSUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L.A.A.No.978 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Thrissur in LAR.No.20/2006. 0.0303 hectares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.7/10A and 7/10E of Vatanappilly village had been acquired for construction of an approach road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.19,450/=. The Tribunal had enhanced the compensation by Rs.2614.43. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal raising two contentions. The first contention is regarding inadequacy of the land value and the second contention is regarding the injury that had been caused to the property by division of the same into two. It has to be stated that the claimant should have been more vigilant in producing appropriate documents before the court. But it is seen from the award that there were fruit bearing trees in the property which is indicative of the fertility of the land. Similarly the land acquisition court has also noted that if the property is cut into two and : 2 : L.A.A.No.978 OF 2009 as there is road frontage, it will have no disadvantages. 2. I am afraid that the said approach is erroneous for the reason that if the property is cut into two, naturally disadvantages will be caused to the property. So, the matter requires consideration at the hands of the court. The learned counsel pleads for an opportunity to substantiate the land value. As the matter has to go back, I feel an opportunity be given to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. 3. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the land acquisition court with a direction to consider the points mentioned above. For this purpose, the Tribunal shall allow the parties to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the land acquisition court on 01.02.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : L.A.A.No.978 OF 2009 : 4 : L.A.A.No.978 OF 2009