IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2630 of 2009(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2009 IN IA 1837/2008 IN LAR.121/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW, S/O.ISSAC, PUTHENTHARAYIL, THIRUNALLOORE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA ADV.JOBY CYRIAC, SC FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.2630 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a claimant in two Land Acquisition References. After evidence in the Land Acquisition References was over, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application for issue of a commission to compare another property with the property which has been acquired, for the purpose of determination of compensation due to the petitioner. The same has been rejected by Ext.P7 order of the Sub Court, Cherthala. Ext.P7 is under challenge before me. 2. In Ext.P7 the Sub Court has held thus: “6. The point:- The reference case was filed as early as in 2003 and the evidence in this case was closed and now it stands posted for hearing. Now the applicant's requirement is to issue a commission for local inspection to ascertain the lay and location, availability of public and private establishments having proximity to the acquired property. Evidently the attempt is to establish the importance of the locality in which the acquired property is situated. As already stated earlier this is one of the oldest L.A.R. pending on the file of this court in which the evidence was taken after giving all reasonable opportunities to the contesting parties to adduce evidence. Now it stands posted for hearing. The notification under which the land had been acquired was promulgated as early as on 24.1.1997 and the land was taken possession on 16.9.2000. Due to efflux of time ocean of change would have taken place in that locality particularly in view of the acquisition for the purpose of Industrial Growth Centre and how a local inspection to find out the existence of public and private institutions having proximity to the acquired site is only a ruse to canvass exorbitant enhanced compensation for the acquired property based on the developments transpired in the locality for the last 11 years and such an attempt cannot be countenanced. If the applicants were having genuine claim based on the documents now sought to be produced, certainly he could have taken out a commission at an earlier stage. In my view the commission now sought to be taken out is highly belated and it is only a ruse on the part of the claimant in protracting the trial of this reference to the maximum extent possible with a view to press into service the developmental phase that w.p.c.2630/09 2 had taken place in the locality after the promulgation of Section 4(1) notification and also with a view to get 15% interest on enhancement in compensation, if any, awarded by the reference court for a maximum period and accordingly I find no merit in the I.A. and it is only to be dismissed. I do not find any infirmity in that order since the reasoning for rejection of the application is perfectly proper and valid. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge