IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 552 of 2001() ------------------------- LAR.6/1997 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD CLAIMANTS -------------- T.C.ALEXANDER THONIKKADAVU VADAVATHOOR P.O. MANGANAM KARA VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENT --------------- 1 S.GOPACHANDRAN NAIR ONATHU VEEDU ONAKKUR VILLAGE MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK ( DELETED) 2. KURIAN KURIAN CHIRAKKAL PARAMBIL VAZHIKKADAVU TEEKOY VILLAGE ( DELETED) 3. THE TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL TALUK KOTTAYAM 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM Respondents 1 and 2 are deleted from party array at the risk of the petitioner vide order dated 11/09/2007 in I.A.No.1346/06 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.552 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The 3rd claimant in L.A.R.No.6/1997 on the file of Palai Sub Court is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the judgment of the reference court confirming the award of the land acquisition officer. Before the reference court, they produced Exts.A1 to A4 and facilitated the submission of Ext.C1 Commissioner's report to support their claim for enhanced land value. More over, they examined witnesses - AWs 1 to 5. No oral counter evidence was adduced by the respondent State. The only item of evidence produced on the side of the respondent was Ext.R1 acquisition file. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha Anad, learned counsel for the appellant as well as those of Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Sub Judge. We find that the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected all the documents on the side of the claimants and even the LAR.No.552/2001 2 Commissioner's report Ext.X1 stating one reason or the other. We feel that the complete rejection of the documents on the reasons mentioned by the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified especially in the absence of any counter evidence by the State. The learned Judge could have placed partial reliance on the documents and thought in terms of re-fixing the market value of the acquired land. But one major blemish we notice about the impugned judgment is that the Kerala State Electricity Board, the requisitioning authority, had not been made a party to the LAR. We therefore, set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the matter to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palai. We direct the learned Subordinate Judge to issue notice to the Kerala State Electricity Board of the LAR and to take a fresh decision in the LAR on the basis of the evidence already on record and any further evidence which may be adduced by the appellants/claimants or the State or the Electricity Board. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the learned Subordinate Judge within four months of the re-opening of the court after mid-summer recess. Refund the full court fee paid on LAR.No.552/2001 3 the appeal memorandum to the learned counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAR.No.552/2001 4