IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 1475 of 2009() -------------------- LAR.96/1991 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM ................... APPELLANT / CLAIMANT : --------------------------------------- SIVARAMAN PILLAI UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, POOTHANAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PERUMON POST, PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. B. KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- LA.App..No. 1475 of 2009() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - I : COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A. NO. 886 OF 2000 TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE REVIEW APPLICATION. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NO. 1475 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. This appeal is preferred against judgment in LAR No.96/91 of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam. An extent of 14.77 Ares of property belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of 'Kallada Irrigation Project'. The property is situated in Panayam Village . The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 26.10.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,276/- per Are. In the impugned judgment of the Reference Court only a nominal increase was allowed, refixing the land value at the rate of Rs.5500/- per Are. The appellant had produced Ext.A1 sale deed relating to a property having an extent of 3.2 Ares along with a building situated therein. Consideration shown in Ext.A1 document is a sum of Rs.66,000/- per cent. But the court below discarded Ext.A1 document finding that the property covered under Ext.A1 is situated in Perinad Village, whereas the property acquired is in Panayam Village. Further it is observed that, the comparison, nature and lie of the properties were not proved through any convincing evidence. Hence the Reference Court found that Ext.A1 LAA.1475/2009 2 sale deed could not be relied on for the purpose of fixing the enhanced compensation . 2. Learned counsel the appellant contended that the acquired property also situated originally in Perinad Village and only due to bifurcation of the villages that the property became vested in Panayam village. It is further contended that the acquired property and the property covered under Ext.A1 are similarly situated within a short distance. It is also contended that Ext.A1 document was proved by examination of PW2 who is the vendor of that property. Under such circumstances discarding of Ext.A1 document was highly illegal and unjustifiable, is the contention. 3. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and other relevant documents, we are of the considered opinion that discarding of Ext.A1 document solely on the finding that the property is situated in another village, cannot be justified. However, comparability of the acquired land with that of the land covered under Ext.A1 was not brought out through any convincing evidence. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had not taken out any commission for the purpose of comparison of the merits of both the lands in question. We also take notice of the fact that the property covered under Ext.A1 is only a small extent with a building situated therein. Learned counsel for the LAA.1475/2009 3 appellant raised plea for remitting the matter to the reference court for adduction of proper evidence. Eventhough we find that there was no denial of any opportunity to the appellant, we are of the view that interest of justice will be served if a remand is made for fresh disposal of the matter by the Reference Court with permission granted to the appellant to adduce proper evidence . 4. In the result, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Principal Sub Court, Kollam for fresh consideration and disposal. The appellant will be at liberty to adduce fresh evidence in support of his claim for enhanced compensation, including evidence in support of comparability of the land covered under Ext.A1 document. Needless to say that the respondent shall be afforded with adequate opportunity to controvert such evidence, if any adduced. 5. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 16.8.2011. The Principal Sub Court, Kollam is directed to take all earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 4 months from the date fixed for appearance of parties. 6. We make it clear that in case the Reference court refixes the compensation over and above than what was awarded LAA.1475/2009 4 through the impugned judgment, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of the impugned judgment till today (i.e: From 27.2.1999 to 20.7.2011). 7. We are not inclined to order refund of the court fee paid in this appeal as we notice that there are laches on the part of the appellant in not producing relevant and sufficient evidences before the Reference Court . The registry will ensure that balance court fee is paid before issuing certified copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.1475/2009 5