IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 L.A.App..No. 889 of 2005(B) -------------------------- LAR.250/2002 of SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/1ST CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- VAYAKKARA YESODA, W/O. P.M. DIVAKARAN AGED 62 YEARS, PANNITHADATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD POST, THALASSERI. BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H. DIVISION, KANNUR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J ======================= L.A.A.No.889 of 2005 ========================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The first claimant in L.A.R.250/2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thalasseri, is the appellant. Certain properties in the possession of the appellant were acquired for a public purpose. The appellant appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and produce Exts.A1 and A2. The Land Acquisition Officer took a view that those documents are not sufficient proof of title of the appellant because the properties originally belonged to Thiruvangad Devaswom. The Land Acquisition Officer also took a view that the appellant was holding a possessory right as on 1.1.97 and title vested with the Government and as such amount due to the land owner is to be given to the second respondent- National Highway Division, Kannur. So he referred the matter to the Sub court. Before the sub court the appellant appeared and contended that the entire amount was due to her. The learned Sub Judge took a view that there was no evidence to prove the rent which was paid by the appellant to the land owner. So he adopted rates fixed under L.A.A.No.889/2005 2 Schedule III framed under Section 27 of the KLR Act and directed that 1/8th of the entire amount is to be given to the Executive Engineer, National Highway Authority, which was quantified as Rs.9039/-. Challenging that decree and judgment this appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued before me that the view taken by the Sub Judge that there is no material to fix the rent is not correct. It is argued that the appellant took assignment of the property under Ext.A1 in the year 1982 in which the rent payable was stated. The recitals of Ext.A1 is not binding on the land owner. 3. Admittedly, the appellant had not purchased jenmam right. Some amount has to be paid to the second respondent. The trial court took a view that it is a case in which there is no material to fix the rent. Considering all aspects I am of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the appellant to prove the rent payable to the land owner. For that purpose the case has to go back. In the result the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by the court below in L.A.R.250/02 are hereby L.A.A.No.889/2005 3 set aside and the case is remanded. The learned Sub Judge is directed to take L.A.R.250/2002 back to file and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant to prove the rent payable to land owner. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 15.02.2008. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE dvs