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 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1448 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.249/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS: ----------------------- 1. K.SAHADEVAN, TC 31/1564 (1), CHACKAI.P.O PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1 SMT.SUSAN MATHEW FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH C.O.NO.11/2010 ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. No.1448 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Our attention is drawn by both sides to our own judgment in LA.A.No.176/2009 and Cross Objection 95/2009. We notice that under that judgment, we set aside the judgment and decree of the reference court and remanded the LAR which pertains to the adjacent property to the Reference Court for a fresh decision. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that judgment and decree under appeal also warrant interference. Hence, following the decision taken by us in L.A.A.No.176/2009 and C.O.No.95/2009, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand LAR No.249/2007 to the II Additional Sub court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to afford an opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever evidence they want to. That court will take a fresh decision as to the L.A.ANo.1448/2009 - 2 - correct market value to be paid to the respondents. Since the respondents have preferred Cross Objections 11/2009 and raised a contention in their Cross Objection that the property under acquisition was eligible to be included in a superior category, that court will also decide that which is the apposite category in which the property in question should be included. Needful in compliance with the above direction will be done by the learned Sub Ordinate Judge, at the earliest and at any rate, within four months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this judgment. The parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 8.3.2010. Since we notice some laches on the part of the Cross Objector in adducing evidence, regarding the contention that the property is eligible to be included in a superior category, we order that only 80% of the court fee remitted on the memorandum of Cross Objection will be refunded to the Cross Objector. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps