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 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 256 of 2008(D) -------------------------- LAR.8/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------- 1. BIJU RAMESH, "SAMPTHRIPTHI", KOTTAKKAKAM, KIZHAKKEKOTTA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MEGHA, D/O.BIJU RAMESH OF DO DO. 3. RESHMA, D/O.BIJU RAMESH OF DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.RAGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, ALONG WITH LAA.160 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.256,531 & 1930 of 2008 & 160 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. All these appeals are by the claimants and they pertain to acquisition of land in Manakkad Village at the behest of the Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation for their scheme for providing housing accommodation to members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. LAA.Nos.256/2008 and 531/2008 pertaining respectively to LAR.Nos.8/2001 and 9/2001 were acquisition pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 11.9.1998. LAA.Nos.160/2009 and 1930/2008 pertaining respectively to LAR.Nos.351/2003 and 350/2003 were acquisition pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 25.9.2000. Different rates were awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in these cases for the lands under acquisition. The reference court, however, by separate judgments re-fixed the value of the land uniformly at Rs.40,000/- per cent. In these appeals, the claimants have L.A.A.256,531 & 1930 of 2008 & 160 of 2009 2 raised grounds alleging that it is a grossly inadequate compensation that has been fixed by the court below. Some of the grounds are attractive and the submissions of Mr.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel for the appellant were persuasive. But we are of the view that it is not necessary that we consider the merits of the grounds and the submissions. We notice that in LAR.Nos.8/2001 and 9/2001 the requisitioning authority, the Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation was not made a party before the reference court. Interestingly the Land Acquisition Officer himself has stated in his reference letter that the requisitioning authority should be made a party. Still for reasons which are not presently known, the local authority was not made a party in those two cases where the extents involved is relatively large. 2. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (AIR 1995 SC 724), which was followed by this court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1995 (2) KLT 683] the judgments which are impugned in these two appeals are liable to be L.A.A.256,531 & 1930 of 2008 & 160 of 2009 3 interfered with on that reason alone. Since we are obliged to relegate the two LAR cases in these appeals back to the reference court giving off opportunity to all parties including the Corporation also to adduce further evidence, we feel that it is only proper that all the four cases are sent back. 3. Result of the above discussion is as follows:- Judgments impugned in these appeals are set aside. LAR.Nos.350/2003 & 351/2003 are remanded to the Ist Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and LAR.Nos.8/2001 & 9/2001 are remanded to the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to implead the Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation as an additional party in LAR.Nos.8/2001 and 9/2001. The courts below are directed to afford opportunity to all parties in all these cases to adduce whatever further evidence they want to and to re-fix the market value of land under acquisition on the basis of entirety of the evidence that come on record. While re-fixing the market value the courts below will have due regard to the time gap between the two section 4(1) notifications and in our opinion the courts below will be L.A.A.256,531 & 1930 of 2008 & 160 of 2009 4 justified in awarding a higher rate in those two cases covered by the subsequent 4(1) notification. Since the claimants cannot be blamed for the remand order which has become necessary, we feel that the entire court fee paid on the memoranda of appeal should be refunded to the appellants or to their counsel. Hence we order refund of the full court fee to the appellants. Parties are directed to enter appearance before the reference court on 15.7.2010. The courts below are directed to complete the enquiry and to pass revised judgments early, at any rate within three months of parties entering appearance before that court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb