IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1162 of 2008(A) --------------------------- LAR.127/1997 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- CHRISTOPHER FERNADEZ, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BENEDICT, A.C COTTAGE, KAMUKARA MURI, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.S.WILLIAMS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADDL.R2). ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1162 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal preferred by the claimant who is not satisfied by the re-fixation of the compensation for his properties which were acquired for the purpose of the second respondent KINFRA. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Hemalatha, counsel for the appellant, Sri.G.S.Reghunath, counsel for KINFRA and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, senior Govt. Pleader. Eventhough several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal, at the time of hearing Smt.Hemalatha would request for passage of an order of remand for the purpose of enabling the court below to rely on the document which was marked as Ext.A3. According to Smt. Hemalatha, the court below did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A3 on the reason that the requisitioning LAA. N0. 1162/08 -2- authority and the Government were not given notice regarding production of Ext.A3 and that the Government and the requisitioning authority did not get an opportunity to cross examine the witness since production of Ext.A3 was after evidence of the witness concerned was recorded. We find some merit in the above submission. At the same time, we notice that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in producing the document on time. Therefore we are of the view that an opportunity can be afforded to the appellant to have an order of remand, however, only by imposing condition. 3. The result is that the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. LAR. No. 127 of 1997 is remanded to the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That Court is directed to permit the appellant to recall the witness for the purpose of given oral evidence in respect of Ext.A3 judgment, so that the Government and the requisitioning authority will get an opportunity to cross LAA. N0. 1162/08 -3- examine the witness. Since the remand is being necessitated due to the fault of the appellant there will be a further direction that in the event of the appellant becoming eligible for compensation over and above what is awarded under the impugned judgment for the acquired property such enhanced compensation will not be eligible for the interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 19-6-2008 till 25-8-2009. On the same reasoning we are of the view that full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum cannot be refunded to the appellant. Registry will however, refund one half of the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant Smt.M.Hemalatha. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-