IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 2116 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.374/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- MANAMTHARAYIL PRASANNA, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA) N.H - 11, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T..JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 2116 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. On this appeal preferred by the claimant coming up for admission, Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned senior Government Pleader, has taken notice as directed by us. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.T.T.Josephina senior Government Pleader. We notice that under the impugned judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge has answered the reference in the negative on the reason that pursuant to the remand order passed by this court giving liberty to both sides for adducing evidence, the appellant/claimant did not adduce any evidence. According to the appellant, the remand order passed by this court was common to other connected cases. The records pertaining to this case alone had reached the Reference Court. Therefore, an interlocutory application was filed by the appellant seeking an adjournment of this case after removing the same from the special list. It was after dismissing LAA.No.2116/2008 2 that I.A., the learned Subordinate Judge has passed the impugned judgment. There is something in the judgment to indicate that the appellant filed an application for adjournment which was dismissed by the Reference Court. The fact remains that the impugned judgment is not the result of an enquiry conducted by the court below regarding the merits of the claim. We are, therefore, inclined to afford one more opportunity to the appellant to have his LAR case conducted on merits , however only on conditions. 3. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows; The judgment and decree under appeal will stand set aside and LAR No.374/1999 is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence subject to the following conditions; i). If, by the revised judgment to be passed by the Reference Court, the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the L.A.Act during the LAA.No.2116/2008 3 period from 30/8/2008 till the date of the revised award. ii). The appellant will forfeit 50% of the court fee now remitted (one third of the total) and the Registry will refund only Rs.12,575/- to the appellant's counsel out of the court fee remitted. The parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on 18/3/2011. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to complete the enquiry and pass revised award at the earliest after affording opportunity to both sides for adducing further evidence. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk The amount “Rs.12,575/-” occurring in condition No.ii) in page 3 of the judgment dated 23/02/2011 in L.A.A. 2116/2008 is corrected and substituted as Rs.37,055/-” vide order dated 23/5/2011 in I.A. No.1290/2011. SD/- Registrar(Judicial)