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 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 606 of 2006(B) -------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.129/2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- IBRAHIM, S/O. KUNJUVAVA, VADAKKEMANAPURATHU, ADIYAN MURI, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., VAIKOM-686 605. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: L.A.A. NO.606/2006-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 01/07/2006. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.No.606 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. This appeal filed by the claimant pertains to acquisition of lands in Vadayar village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30.7.1999 for the construction of Palamkadavu bridge. The reference court under the impugned judgment refixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned Government Pleader drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.253 of 2000. It is seen that in that judgment, this Court interfered with the judgment of the reference court pertaining to acquisition of identical lands and remanded the matter back to the reference court. For the reasons stated in that judgment, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand L.A.R.No.129 of 2003 to the Sub Court, Kottayam. The learned Sub Judge of that court is directed to 2 L.A.A.No.606 of 2006 pass revised judgment after permitting both sides to adduce further evidence. However, if under the revised judgment the appellant becomes eligible for more compensation than what is awarded under the impugned judgment, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the LA Act, during the period from 16.6.2005 till the date of the revised award. Appeal is allowed by way of remand, however without any order as to costs. As we find negligence on the part of the appellant, no part of the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum will be refunded. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/