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 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 806 of 2005() ------------------------- LAR.5/1999 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): SUPPL 2ND RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------------------------------ THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS. -------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. PULIYAKKODAN MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O.ALASSAN HAJI, HAJIYARAPALLY, MALAPPURAM, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF HIS SONS KUNHALASSAN AND IBRAHIM, HAJIYARAPPILLY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R2 SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, ALONG WITH C.O NO.109 OF 2005. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J J ................................................................................. L.A.A.NO.806 OF 2005 & C.O.NO.109/2005 ........................................ Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009. .................................................... J U D G M E N T PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. L.A.A.No.806/2005 is filed by the requisitioning authority against the judgment and decree of the reference court in LAR 5/99 and C.O.109/05 is the memorandum of cross objections filed by the claimant. The LA officer included the property under acquisition in category `G' and awarded land value @ Rs.2,310/-. The reference court on the basis of the evidence found that the property should have been included in a superior category. But that court did not enter a specific finding as to which is the category in which the claimant's property should be included. On the basis of the evidence, the value of the acquired property was re-fixed as Rs.4,500/-. Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority drew our attention to the judgment of this court in LAA 533/05 wherein this court has approved re-fixation of the value of the property in category `B' at Rs.4,000/- per cent. He also drew our attention to the judgment of this court in LAA 195/05 and 202/05, wherein this court approved the re- L.A.A.NO.806 OF 2005 & C.O.NO.109/2005 2 fixation of the values of properties in category `G' at Rs.3,215/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. According to the learned counsel, there is no justification for granting anything more than Rs.3,200/- per cent for the property which is in category `G' only. 2. The learned counsel for the cross objector, in contrast to the submissions of the counsel for the appellant would not only support the judgment of the reference court but would argue that there is specific reason granting more than the present rate of Rs.4,500/- awarded by the reference court. According to him, the property fell in a far superior category than category `G' in which it has been included by the L.A.officer. The learned counsel referred to the judgment in LAA 716/05 involving the property in category `D' and submitted that even for the properties in category `D', this court approved a valuation at Rs.4,000/-. According to the learned counsel, there is no warrant for interference, in this appeal. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the learned subordinate Judge L.A.A.NO.806 OF 2005 & C.O.NO.109/2005 3 was not justified in entering a specific finding as to the specific category in which the property of the cross objection should have been included. The counsel on either sides submitted that some enhancement in the matter of re-fixation of the market value of the property under acquisition may have to be granted. 4. We are therefore of the view that the judgment and decree under appeal can be set aside and the LAR can be remanded back to the reference court for adducing further evidence including the judgment referred to by the learned counsel. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal as well as the cross objection by setting aside the judgment under appeal and remanding the LAR No.5/99 back to the Sub Court, Manjeri and Sub Court, Manjeri, will permit both sides to adduce further evidence and will pass revised judgment on the basis of the entire evidence on record. Refund the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum and the cross objection to the respective counsel. The learned Sub Judge will pass revised judgment at the earliest, and at any rate within 5 months from the date of L.A.A.NO.806 OF 2005 & C.O.NO.109/2005 4 receipt of copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. ami.