IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 975 of 2009(C) ------------------------------- LAR.242/1988 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ VILASINI, AGED 64, W/O.KADUTHA VELAYUDHAN, MALAYIL HOUSE, KANDANADU KARA, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.P.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 53, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, PATHANIPADAM HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, PERUMPALLY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.975 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The appellant/claimant challenges in this appeal the judgment of the Land Acquisition Reference Court closing the reference for the reason that the claimant is not present. 2. Having regard to the submissions addressed before us by Sri.P.Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader who has taken notice on behalf of the Government, we are of the view that opportunity can be given to the appellant for adducing evidence and substantiating his claim for L. A. A. No.975 of 2009 -2- enhancement. After all, in the previous round of litigation, the appellant had adduced evidence and the court had become inclined to grant considerable enhancement. It was in appeal preferred by the Government that the earlier judgment of the Reference Court was set aside and the LAR remanded. The reasons stated in the appeal memorandum by the appellant for her absence when the case was called by the learned Sub Judge are fairly convincing. Moreover, we have already imposed strict conditions while condoning the delay caused in the matter of filing the appeal. Those conditions will continue to operate. 3. The result of the above discussion is that the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and LAR.242/88 is remanded to the Third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. That court is directed to post the L. A. A. No.975 of 2009 -3- case at least once for taking pre-trial steps by the appellant and thereafter only to post the same for trial in special list. The court will decide the LAR on merits on the basis of the evidence, if any, adduced by the claimants/appellants and revised judgment will be passed by the learned Sub Judge at the earliest, and at any rate, within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. All the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dt.18/08/09 in C.M. Application No.1293/09 will be taken note of by the learned Sub Judge while passing the decree. Since we are of the view that the appellant herself is responsible for this order of remand, we are not inclined to order refund of full amount of court fee. The Registry will, however, refund half of the total court fee actually remitted to Sri.P.Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the L. A. A. No.975 of 2009 -4- appellant or to the appellant. 4. This L.A.A is thus, allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-