IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 1562 of 2002() -------------------------- LAR.52/1999 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. VARGHESE S/O.OUSEPH, KURIALATHOTTATHIL, AIKKARANADU. 2. MARY, W/O. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN SRI.MATHEW CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1562 of 2002 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. Their properties in Aikkaranadu North Village were acquired for the purpose of construction of an approach road to Peruvummuzhy Bridge. The relevant Section 4(1) Notification was published on 15- 12-1993. The land acquisition officer treated the property as one without road frontage and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.10,040/- per Are. Before the reference court the appellants relied mainly on Ext.A1 judgment and A2 sale deed. The court below did not place reliance on those two documents giving reasons. According to us reasons stated by the court below for not relying on A1 and A2 are correct. Finally, the court below applying the rule of thump re-fixed the land value by 30% over what was awarded by the land acquisition officer. LAA. 1562/02 -2- 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the reference court. Even though Mr.H.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments on all the grounds he gave more thrust to his submission that a Division Bench of this Court considering another appeal pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose re-fixed the value of land involved in that case, LAA. No. 352/01 at Rs.24,333/- per Are. According to Mr. Sivaraman, there is justification for granting to the appellant value atleast at the above rate. 3. All the submissions of Mr. Sivaraman were opposed by Smt. Josephina, learned Govt. Pleader. She submitted that there is no comparison between the properties in LAA. No. 352 of 2001 and the present properties. According to her, the properties in that case had proximity to the Highway unlike the present properties. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. On going LAA. 1562/02 -3- through the papers we find that the properties which were subject matter of LAA. No. 352 of 2001 were different in quality from the properties involved in the present case. They were situated in different survey numbers and the same village. The comparability of the two properties and the fixation of market value relying on the judgment in LAA. No. 352/01 are, in our view, matters to be considered by the reference court. Mr. Sivaraman was able to convince us that the appellants had genuine reason for not being able to produce the above judgment before the reference court. We are therefore inclined to permit the appellants to rely on that judgment also before the reference court. 5. Result of the above discussion is as follows; The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. LAR. No. 52 of 1999 is remanded to the Sub Court, Ernakulam. That court is directed to take a fresh decision and to pass revised award after giving opportunity to both LAA. 1562/02 -4- sides to adduce whatever evidence they want to. The appellants can produce the judgment in LAA. 352 of 2001 and prove before the reference court the comparability of the present properties with the properties involved in that case. Other evidence can also be adduced by the parties. The learned Subordinate Judge will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence which comes to be on record. As we find that there was latches on the part of the appellant in not producing all the evidence in the first instance, we are inclined to impose condition as follows: In case under the revised award to be passed by the reference court the appellants become eligible for enhanced compensation over what was awarded under the impugned award of the reference court such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 29-1- LAA. 1562/02 -5- 2002 till this date (7-7-2011). The parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 2-8-2011. The reference court will complete the enquiry and pass revised award within four months thereafter. (C.PIUS KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- LAA. 1562/02 -6- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. LAA. No. 1562 of 2002 JUDGMENT 7th July, 2011 LAA. 1562/02 -7-