IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 509 of 2001() ------------------------- LAR.536/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT : RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------- 1. KALUR GOPINATH, 10/1569, KOUSALIYA MANDIRAM, P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 509 OF 2001 & CROSS-OBJECTIONS --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 4, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal and the cross-objections pertain to acquisition of land at Kozhikode for the strengthening of the sharp curve at Muthalakkulam Moitheen Palli road. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.41,851/- per cent. The Reference Court, relying mainly on Exts.A1 and A2, re-fixed the land value at rupees one lakh per cent. In the appeal preferred by the Government, the enhancement so granted is assailed and in the memorandum of cross-objections it is contended that the enhancement granted is inadequate. A reading of the judgment will reveal that it was relying on Exts.A1 and A2 alone that the learned Subordinate Judge has granted the enhancement. It is brought to our notice that this Court, by the judgment in LAA 582/2000 and the judgments in other appeals, set aside Exts.A1 and A2 and remanded the matter to the Reference Court, making LAA 509/2001 & CROSS-OBJECTIONS 2 an observation that the market value of the property at the relevant time was certainly more than Rs.1 lakh and that the issue regarding the correct market value will have to be decided afresh on the basis of better evidence to be adduced by the parties. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the impugned judgment is also liable to be set aside and the LAR remanded to the Reference Court. 2. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, we remand the LAR back to the Reference Court giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce fresh evidence, as has been done by this Court in the judgment in LAA 582/2000. It is observed here also that the market value of the property, at any rate, will not be less than Rs.1 lakh. The court below will permit both sides to adduce whatever evidence they have and will take decision on the basis of the entire evidence. Refund the court-fee paid on the memorandum of cross- objections to the counsel for the cross-objector. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- LAA 509/2001 & CROSS-OBJECTIONS 3 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. 509 Of 2001 & cross-objections JUDGMENT ------------------------------ 4.6.2009