IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 70 of 2011(B) ----------------------------- LAR.53/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AT PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD,KOCHI 682 018,(NOW OFFICE AT H.NO. 1/631/A,KANADIKADU AREA,MARADU PO,KOCHI 682 304,) REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND FIRST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANU KUMAR,CHERUMANMEL VEEDU, CHERIYAZHIKKAL PO, ALAPPAD,KARUNAGAPPALY, KOLLAM, 690573. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691001 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA SRI.NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Requisitioning Authority, M/s Inland Waterways Authority of India is in appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land with structures in Alappat village of Kollam District. The learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment has granted enhancement on land value and enhancement on building value. It is fairly conceded before us by Sri.V.Santharam, the learned counsel for the appellant that the land value re-fixed by the Reference Court has been approved by this Court in other judgments being only 60% more than what the L.A. Officer had awarded. 2. Under the above circumstances, we need be concerned in this appeal only with the correctness of the L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 -2- enhancement granted on the building value. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of ` 1,21,372/- towards building value. The evidence adduced by the claimant before the Reference Court in the context of the claim for enhancement in building value consisted of Exts.C1 Commission Report, C2 Mahazar submitted by the Commissioner and C3 valuation report prepared by the Engineer who assisted the Commissioner. As per Exts.C1 to C3 it was recommended that the correct value of the building is ` 3,45,000/-. Neither the Commissioner nor the Engineer who prepared the valuation statement were examined as witnesses on the side of the claimant. Exts.C1 to C3 were got marked through AW1, the claimant. The learned Sub Judge would notice that the marking of Exts.C1 to C3 was done without opposition and would accept Exts.C1 to C3 in full and re-fix the market value of the building at ` L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 -3- 3,45,000/-. 3. In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging re-determination of the building value by the Reference Court. Sri.Santharam, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that mere marking will not amount to proof. AW1 was not competent to prove the correctness of Ext.C3 valuation report. It was obligatory that at least the Engineer who prepared Ext.A3 should be examined. In the absence of such examination, Exts.C1 to C3 should not have been relied on. 4. The submission of Sri.Santharam were opposed by Sri.Noble Mathew. He submitted that apart from AW1, AW2 Panchayat Secretary was also able to give evidence that the building was much more valuable than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Sri.Noble Mathew highlighted that the appellant had not even filed objections to the L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 -4- Commission Report. A party who does not file objections to the Commission Report is not entitled to contend at this stage that the Commission Report should not have been relied on. 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. While we find some force in the submission of Sri.Noble Mathew that when the commissioner issued by the Reference Court files a report based on inspection conducted after giving notice to both sides, if the Requisition Authority does not file objections that authority will not be justified in objecting to the report once it is accepted by the court. At the same time, we feel that having regard to the situation wherein the learned Sub Judge has rather blindfoldly accepted the recommendations made under Exts.C1 to C3, this is a case where an opportunity should be given to the Requisitioning Authority L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 -5- to file objections to Exts.C1 to C3. If objections are filed it will be the obligation of the Requisitioning Authority to substantiate those objections by citing the Commissioner or at least the Engineer and cross examining them. We are inclined to grant opportunity to the appellant to do so only by imposing conditions. The condition will be that the appellant pays a sum of ` 1 lakh towards the re-fixed compensation for building value subject to the final outcome of the reference case. 6. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows:- The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. L.A.R.53/03 is remanded to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam That court is directed to permit the Requisitioning Authority to file objections to the Commission Report and valuation report. The objections, if any shall be filed by the appellant L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 -6- within three weeks of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this order of remand. The objections to be filed will be substantiated by the appellant by citing and cross examining the Commissioner and Engineer concerned. If further evidence is adduced by the appellant the claimant also can be permitted to adduce further evidence if any. The learned Sub Judge will pass the revised judgment after redetermining the correct compensation payable for the building. The value re-fixed by the court for the land is confirmed. The parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on 01/09/11. 7. However, there will be a condition that this judgment remanding the matter to the Reference Court will become operative only if the appellant deposits or facilitates deposit of a sum of ` 1 lakh towards the compensation for the building within one month of receiving a copy of this L. A. A. No.70 of 2011 -7- judgment. It is open to the claimant/respondent to seek release of the above amount before the court below. As we notice some laches on the part of the appellant/Authority in the matter of filing of objections to the Commission Report and Valuation Report, we order that the 1/3 court fee already paid by the appellant will be forfeited as penalty and not be refunded at all. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-