IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 600 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.48/2005 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ K.P.IBRAHIM,S/O.ABDULLA,MALAPPATTAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NH,KANNUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KANNUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, ALONG WITH LAA NO.983 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.600 and 983 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The same claimant is the appellant in both these appeals. He is aggrieved by the judgment of the reference court confirming the award by the Land Acquisition Officer on the reason that evidence adduced by him is not sufficient for awarding any enhancement. In these appeals the appellant is placing reliance on Annexure A1 and A2 judgments. It is submitted that those judgments pertain to acquisition of adjacent land for the same purpose. It is urged that the enhancements granted in A1 and A2 be granted to the appellants also. The request of Mr.O.V. Maniprasad, learned counsel for the appellant is stiffly opposed by Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Govt. Pleader. He submitted that if this court feels that the issue should be reconsidered, the matter can be remanded to lower court imposing substantial conditions so that interest of the State also be taken into account. L.A.A.600 & 983/09 - 2 - 2. We have considered rival submissions. We feel that parties can be allowed to adduce further evidence in substantiating all the claims for enhancement of land value including A1 and A2. At the same time we feel that the appellant himself is to blame for not having produced proper evidence before the reference court and according to us he should not have permitted to take advantage of his own fault. Hence we are inclined to impose conditions while interfering with the impugned judgment and giving opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence. The result of the above discussion is as follows: The judgments and decrees under appeals are set aside. L.A.R.Nos.37/05 and 48/05 are remanded to the Sub Court Payyannur giving opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to, subject to the following conditions:- (i). The appellant shall pay a consolidated amount of Rs.4,500/- to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee and produce receipt before the reference court. (ii). In the event of the appellant becoming entitled for enhanced compensation by virtue of the revised judgment to be passed in the appeals by the reference court such L.A.A.600 & 983/09 - 3 - enhancement will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 11.4.2008 till the date of revised judgment to be passed by the reference court. The parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 29.3.2010. The learned Sub Judge is directed to give opportunity to the appellant to adduce whatever further evidence he wants to. If further evidence is adduced by the claimant, the respondents will be permitted to adduce counter evidence. Reference court is directed to pass revised judgment early and at any rate within four months of parties entering appearance. (iii). In view of the laches noticed on the part of the appellant we order that the court fee remitted in LAA.600/09 will not be refunded to the appellant and that only half of the court fee remitted on LAA. 983/09 will be refunded to him. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb