IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1191 of 2010() -------------------------- (LAR NO.24/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE KOTTAYAM) APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SUDHAKARA KAIMAL, TRUSTEE, PARAMBATHU KUDUMBA TRUST, CHINGAVANAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) SRI.K.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER, RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION, CHENNAI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SMT.LATHA T.THNAKPPAN SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1191 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property, reclaimed wet land in Panachikkadu Village, was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/9/2003 for the purpose of electrification of railway lane. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.4043 /- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied mostly on Exts.A1 and A2 documents. Though Exts.A1 and A2 documents were pre notification documents, the court below did not place reliance on them for the reason that those documents were executed after the property had been taken over. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in the circumstances of the case in excluding Ext.A1 and A2 from consideration. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has produced before this court Document Nos.1086/2002 and 1797/2002 of the Sub LAA.No.1191/2010 2 Registry, Puthuppally. Both these documents are pre notification documents and they reflected value much higher than what is presently awarded by the Reference Court. We find some merit in the submission of Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup that these documents will have some relevance in determining the correct market value of the property under acquisition. Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup requested that an opportunity be given to rely on these documents. We feel that by imposing proper conditions such opportunity can be given to the appellant. 3. Accordingly, the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and L.A.R. No.24/2007 is remanded to the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam for fresh decision. The learned Sub Judge is directed to permit the appellant to produce documents Nos.1086/2002 and 1797/2002 of Puthuppally Sub Registry and any other pre notification documents which may be have some relevance in the matter of determining the market value of the property under acquisition. If the appellant wants to adduce oral evidence for proving these documents, he should be permitted to adduce such oral evidence also. If the appellant wants to take out a commission for proving the comparability of the acquired LAA.No.1191/2010 3 property with the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2, commission application should also be allowed. If the appellant comes to adduce further evidence, the Government should also be allowed to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. The requisitioning authority will also be permitted to adduce further evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge will pass fresh award on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes on record further . 5. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 25/5/2011. The court will complete the enquiry and pass revised award within four months thereafter. We however, make it clear that this judgment remanding the LAR to the Reference Court will become operative only subject to the following conditions; i). The appellant will not be awarded statutory interest under Section 28 for any compensation which is awarded to him in excess of Rs.6542/- per Are during the period from 8/6/2010 till this date (21/3/2011). ii). The appellant will forfeit 30% of the court fee that he has remitted on the appeal memorandum and the Registry will LAA.No.1191/2010 4 refund only 70% of the court fee to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk