IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 771 of 2006 (C) ------------------------------- LAR.21/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------------ ALIBI, W/O.BEERAN, KOPPARAMBIL, VADAKE MAZHUVANNOOR KARA, IYRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE, TC 14/1026, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RUBBER PARK OF INDIA PVT. LTD., VITH FLOOR, PENTA TOWERS, COCHIN-17. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R3 SRI.JACOB P.ALEX FOR R3 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.771 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal and she is aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court closing the reference on the reason that the claimant was absent. It is submitted that a petition was filed before the Reference Court for re-opening the case. But the petition was dismissed. A copy of the order dismissing the petition filed by the claimant for re-opening the case is significantly not produced. 2. Having regard to the submissions addressed by Sri.Siraj Karoli, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Pathrose Mathai, the learned senior L. A. A. No.771 of 2006 -2- counsel for the Requisitioning Authority and the Senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji, we feel that an opportunity can be given to the appellant for substantiating her claims for re-determination of the market value. But since we are fairly convinced that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in the matter of prosecuting the LAR case, we are inclined to impose certain conditions. For the same reason, we are also not inclined to order re-fund of the 1/3 of the court fee which is presently remitted by the appellant. The result of the above discussion, therefore, is as follows:- 1) The judgment and decree under appeal will stand set aside and the L.A.A will stand allowed. LAR.21/01 is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Paravur. That court will afford at least two L. A. A. No.771 of 2006 -3- opportunities to the appellant for adducing evidence for substantiating her claim for enhanced land value. If the appellant adduces evidence, the respondent will be permitted to adduce counter evidence and the Reference Court will pass the revised judgment on the basis of the evidence which came on record, at its earliest, and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. Since the appellant himself is responsible for this order of remand, it is ordered that in case the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation by virtue of the judgment to be passed by the Reference Court pursuant to this order of remand, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 08/09/05 till 08/09/09. The court fee presently L. A. A. No.771 of 2006 -4- remitted on the appeal memo will not be refunded to the appellant. 3. This appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-