IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 311 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.154/2002 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S)RESPONDENT: -------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, (NH) KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. THEKKEMADATHIL VALAPPIL MUHAMMED ASHRAF S/O.P.T.P. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI, PTP HOUSE KEECHERY, PAPPINISSERY P.O., REP. BY THE RAHUMAN HAJI, PTP HOUSE,KEECHERY PAPPINISSERY P.O., REP BY THE P.A. HOLDER PTP ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R1 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.311 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this appeal, which pertains to acquisition of land for Kannur Power Project pursuant to a notification published on 5/9/1997, the land acquisition officer awarded Rs.4994/- per cent for garden lands and Rs.703/- per cent for Kaipad. Under the impugned judgment, the reference court refixed the land value for garden lands at Rs.10,000/- per cent and the value of Kaipad at Rs.2000/- per cent. It is brought to our notice that the reference court in connected matters refixed land value at different rates for properties which had been treated similarly by the land acquisition officer for the purpose of its original award. Our attention was drawn to the common judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.1089/2007 series. It is seen that, noticing the disparity in the rates fixed by the reference court for properties which had been treated by the land acquisition officer as having the same value, this court set aside the judgments which were impugned in those appeals and remanded LARs back to the L.A.A..No.311/2008 2 reference court. We feel that in this case also the issue will have to be reconsidered by the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence, following the view taken by another Division Bench of this court in L.A.A. No.1089/2007, we set aside the judgment under appeal in L.A.R.154/2002. That court will permit both sides to adduce further evidence, if they chose and will pass revised judgment on the basis of the entire evidence which comes on record. Needful, as directed above, shall be done by the reference court at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. If trial pursuant to the remand order in L.A.A. No.1089/2007 is yet to commence, the learned Subordinate Judge may consolidate L.A.R. No.154/2002 with those cases and take decision jointly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk