IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM : PRESENT . . THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PIUS C KURIAKOSE & . . . THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C K ABDUL REHIM , 2 2010 / 12 1932 WEDNESDAY THE ND JUNE TH JYAISTHA . .. . 881 2006() LA App No of ------------------------- .71/2003 . , LAR of ADDL SUB COURT PARAVUR .................... ( ): APPELLANT S CLAIMANT ---------------------- , / . , SENAN S O DHARMAN , . CHARAKKAD HOUSE MALIANKARA . . . . BY ADV SRI K S BABU . . SMT N SUDHA ( ): RESPONDENT S --------------- , STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY , , THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS , -30. KAKKANAD COCHIN . . GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT LATHA T THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 02/06/2010, ON THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED : THE FOLLOWING PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 881 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this appeal preferred by the appellant claimant the reference court confirmed the award passed by the land acquisition officer and did not grant any enhancement in the compensation to the appellant. Before this Court the appellant has produced certain documents including certified copy of the judgment pertaining to other cases in respect of acquisition of comparable properties. Even though Smt. Sudha Babu requested that those documents be relied on and re-fix the land value, we are not inclined to do so. According to us, these documents will have to be appreciated in the first instance by the reference court itself. The appellant himself is to blame for not having produced these documents and any other relevant documents before the reference court. Hence we are of the view that the LAA. 881 of 2006 -2- appellant has to pay a penalty. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows: The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. LAR. No. 71 of 2003 is remitted back to the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. That Court is directed to permit the appellant claimant to produce whatever further evidence he wants to in support of his claim for enhancement. The court will pass revised judgment on the basis of evidence which comes on record. However, since we have found that the appellant was responsible for not producing the relevant documents earlier it is ordered that during the period from 31-3-2006 till date of the revised judgment to be passed by the reference court pursuant to this judgment the total enhanced compensation if any receivable by the appellant will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. LAA. 881 of 2006 -3- Since we have found that the appellant is responsible for not producing the documents earlier the court fee remitted on the appeal memo will not be refunded to the appellant. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-