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 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No.514 of 2009 ---------------------------- LAR.201/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------ MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS, KOCHUMUTTATH, ENANALLOOR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, MUVATTUPUZHA. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.514 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant being aggrieved by the re- determination of compensation by the Reference Court has preferred this appeal. 2. Even though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sri.V.M.Kuriam, the learned counsel for the appellant would at the time of hearing, request only for passage of an order of remand of the LAR case to the Reference Court so as to enable the appellant/claimant to adduce further evidence. The stand of the Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Basant Balaji is that since the L. A. A. No.514 of 2009 -2- claimant himself is responsible for not adducing proper evidence before the Reference Court, the Government should not be made answerable for payment of statutory interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period of delay which is being occasioned due to the remand. The stand in our view is reasonable. 3. The result of the appeal, therefore, is as follows:- 1) Judgment and decree are set aside. 2) LAR 201/07 is remanded to the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The Sub Court, Muvattupuzha is directed to permit the appellant to adduce whatever further evidence he wants to, in support of his claim for enhanced compensation. If further evidence is L. A. A. No.514 of 2009 -3- adduced by the claimant, the Sub Court will permit the Government and the second respondent also to adduce counter evidence. Fresh decision shall be taken on the basis of the entire evidence which comes on record. It is made clear that in the event of the claimant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation over and above what is presently granted under the impugned judgment, under the revised judgment to be passed by the reference court, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 22/11/2008 till 22/07/09. We have already found that the remand is necessitated due to the fault of the appellant himself, and hence, we are not inclined to order refund of full L. A. A. No.514 of 2009 -4- court fee remitted. We order refund of only 2/3 of the court fee remitted. 4. This appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-