IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 FAO.No. 210 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.317/2010 Dated 25/06/2010 LAR.362/1988 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM (IA.388&389/2010) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT -------------------------------------------- S.M.MONYAMMA,KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, MULAVANA,KANJIRAKODE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.210 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Kerala. 2.A piece of land was acquired from the appellant. The question of sufficiency of compensation was referred to the court. While matters were so pending, the reference was decided on default on account of non-appearance of the appellant and her counsel. That was in the year 2002. In 2009, the appellant filed two applications; one seeking to restore the LAR and the other seeking condonation of delay. She stated in the affidavit that the advocate's clerk who was entrusted with the case had gone to a Gulf country in search of job in 2000 and had not informed either her or her counsel about the listing of the case and its pendency. According to her, this ultimately led to the default disposal of the LAR in 2002. While she filed the FAO.210/10 2 application to condone the delay and restore the LAR in 2009, she further stated that she was unwell. She produced a medical certificate from a Homeopath showing that she need two month's rest, some time in 2002 on account of Rheumatoid Arthritis. With these materials, the court below took the view that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause to restore the LAR or to condone the delay in applying for restoration. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the materials on record tend to show that there was no disposal on merits though the reference court was bound to answer the reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He further argued that there was no circumstance, on the basis of which, the affidavit of the appellant was to be disbelieved. We note that the matter relates to a question of enhancement of compensation and if the appellant loses the reference, even on default, she would not be eligible even for a revised award in terms of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration and the extent of land involved, we are of the FAO.210/10 3 view that ends of justice wold be satisfied if the appellant is given an opportunity to agitate her claim on terms, to wit, that she would forego any claim for interest for the period from 19.3.2001 till the date on which the applications for restoration and condonation of delay were filed, on enhanced compensation, if any, that may be granted. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned common order and allowing I.A.Nos.388/10 and 389/10 in L.A.R.No.366/88 on the above terms. Having regard to the fact that the reference was made in 1988, the court below will take earnest efforts to dispose of the matter finally at the earliest, at any rate, before the court closes for the mid- summer recess, 2011. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.30/08.