IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 203 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 16/07/2010 IN LAR.NO.302/2004 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- JOSEPH JEFRY D-ZUSA, THAYANGANATTU VEEDU, PALLURUTHY, EDAKOCHI. BY SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI, SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN, SRI.NISHIL.P.S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA-688 524. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, S.C, K.S.I.D.C. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NO. 203 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is what is described by the claimant as the inadequacy of the compensation redetermined by the Reference Court at Cherthala. The acquisition was for the establishment of the Industrial Growth Centre, Pallipuram, Cherthala. According to the award passed by the officer, a small portion, 1.43 Ares of property alone was dry land and the entire rest was water logged land or Vellakuzhy. One of the prominent contention raised before the reference court was that the property under acquisition was not wet land or vellakuzhy. It was land having rich deposit of silica and due to deposit of silica the land had considerable value. Ext.A2 certificate issued by the Geologist was put in evidence before the Reference Court. Ext.A2 is to the effect that the property in question is not vellakuzhy or wet land. Learned Subordinate Judge however did not place any reliance on Ext.A2 for the reason that the author of Ext.A2 was not examined as a LAA.203/2011 2 witness. Another reason assigned for not relying on Ext.A2 is that what is reported in Ext.A2 cannot be correct in the light of the report of the Commissioner who conducted inspection. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Reference Court. Annexures-I and II respectively are produced along with IA.No.2130/2011 and 2152/11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Sri.M.K.Damodaran very fervently appealed to us that the matter be remanded to the reference court so that the appellant will be able to prove Ext.A2 properly and also put Annexures I and II and other documents in evidence for supporting the appellant's claim for enhanced land value. Sri. Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority would oppose the request made by the senior counsel for the appellant. According to him, permission to the appellant to produce fresh documents pursuant to the remand will cause serious prejudice to the requisitioning authority. 3. Having considered the rival submissions we are of the view that considerations of justice demand that the appellant be given an opportunity to prove Ext.A2 and to produce proof of LAA.203/2011 3 further documents including Annexure-I and II . At the same time we feel that the interest of the requisitioning authority can be safe guarded to a certain extent by imposing proper conditions. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- The judgment and decree impugned in this appeal are set aside. LAR No. 302/2004 is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala. That court is directed to permit the appellant to prove Ext.A2 by examining the author. That court is also directed to permit the appellant to produce and prove further documents so as to substantiate the appellant's claim for enhanced land value. If further evidence is adduced by the appellant, the court should permit the requisitioning authority also to produce counter evidence. Further enquiry shall be completed by the learned Subordinate Judge and revised award shall be passed taking into account the evidence already on record and brought on record pursuant to this remand. The revised award shall be passed at the earliest and at any rate within four months of the parties entering appearance . 4. We make it clear that this judgment will become operative only subject to the following conditions. (1) The LAA.203/2011 4 appellant will forfeit Rs.25,000/- from out of the court fee presently remitted, to the Government. (2) The appellant will pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the requisitioning authority as cost through its counsel in this court within three weeks from today. (3) In case the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation above the compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and decree on the basis of the revised judgment to be passed, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 16.7.2010 till the date of the revised judgment. Parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on 29.8.2011. Transmit the records forthwith to the lower court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.203/2011 5