IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 226 of 2006 (B) -------------------------------- LAR.91/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- RASHEEDA BEEVI, W/O.SHAMSUDEEN ISMALIYA BUILDING, THALAYOLAPARAMBU. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.226 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this appeal by the claimant, she challenges award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court on the ground that the compensation re-determined by the court is inadequate. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/07/99. The property was in Vadayar village. The purpose was construction of approach road to Palamkadavu Bridge. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Mathew Philip to the judgment of this Court in LAA.253/06 to which one among us [PCK(J)] is party. It is seen from that judgment that this Court has under that judgment interfered with an identical judgment passed by the same Land Acquisition Reference Court and remanded the LAR to the court below for a fresh decision. For the various reasons stated in the judgment in L. A. A. No.226 of 2006 -2- LAA.253/06, the judgment impugned in this appeal is liable to be interfered with. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand LAR.91/03 to the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam for a fresh decision. We direct the learned Subordinate Judge to permit both parties to adduce further evidence if they are desirous of. That court will pass the revised judgment taking into account the evidence already on record and further evidence which may be adduced by the parties. Parties will enter appearance before the court below on 03/02/11. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo. Registry will refund ½ of the court fee remitted, provided full court fee is remitted by the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- L. A. A. No.226 of 2006 -3-