IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 1553 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.3/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------- OMANA, PUTHENPURACKAL, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, PALLATHURUTHY WARD, ALAPUZHA,VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK . ADV. SRI.P.G.THAMPY(SR) SRI.PRIYADARSHAN THAMPY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1553 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT There is no appearance for the claimant respondent in this appeal filed by the Government though they were served through the advocate, who was appearing for them before the reference court and the names of those advocates, who are advocates practicing in this court also, are shown in the cause list. The appeal pertains to Acquisition of 2.02 Ares of land in Pazhaveedu Village in Allapuzha District pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24/4/2000 for the purpose of tourism development. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value for wet lands at the rate of Rs.1680/- per Are and Rs.2800/- per Are for reclaimed lands. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 document, a document executed some four years after relevant Section 4(1) notification, and the oral testimony of AW1 claimant. There was no counter evidence on the side of the Government. A reading of the judgment under L.A.A..No.1553/2007 2 appeal will reveal that the learned Subordinate Judge also thought that the suggestion of the Government Pleader in cross examination that an inflated value was shown in Ext.A1 for the purpose of staking higher value in reference case had some force. The learned Judge noticed that no convincing explanation was forthcoming from the claimant as to why she did not produce documents executed prior to the date of Section 4 (1) notification. Nevertheless, the learned Judge proceeded to adopt 1/4th of the value reflected in Ext.A1 as the correct market value of the property. 2. The approach of the learned Subordinate Judge, in my opinion, was not proper. What surprises me more is decision of the learned Subordinate Judge to grant the same land value for both wet lands and dry lands. The reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge is that the purpose of the Acquisition is tourism development and since it is water tourism which is being developed, question whether the acquired land is wet land or dry land is not of consequence. What the learned Subordinate Judge was expected to decide was the correct market value of the acquired properties, holding enquiries through the L.A.A..No.1553/2007 3 perspective of a willing buyer and willing seller and not through the perspective of the requisitioning authority who ultimately come to enjoy the property as one holding. At the same time it is to be noticed that there was no counter evidence adduced on the side of the Government. The learned Government Pleader submits that if an opportunity is given to the Government, the Government will adduce counter evidence. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, I feel that interests of justice demand that an opportunity should be given to the appellant. Accordingly, I set aside the judgment and decree in the appeal and allow the appeal by passing an order of remand. The court below will permit both sides to adduce further evidence in respect of their rival positions in the L.A.R. and pass revised judgment in the land acquisition reference case. Revised judgment will be passed at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) L.A.A..No.1553/2007 4 dpk