IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 305 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.224/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- KOYAN, S/O.ABOOBACKER, THOMMAM VEETIL, PULIMOOTILPARAMBIL, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.NO.1, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH(B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER BASANT BALAJI GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, ALONG WITH L.A.A.306/2008 & CONN CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.305, 306 & 307 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal in those cases. Their lands in Edappally North Village were acquired for the purpose of NH-17. The Land Acquisition Officer included their lands in category-2 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,25,400/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied mainly on Exts.A3 and A4 documents, Ext.C1 commission report and the oral testimonies of AWs1 & 2. Apart from producing Ext.R1 to R10, which are copies of documents relating to the award files, the respondents did not adduce any counter evidence. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence on record, concluded that the appellants are entitled only for enhancement by 10% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is alleged by the claimants that the same Reference Court dealing with other cases pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose falling within the same category has granted enhancement at the rate of 30% and even 60% over what was L.A.A..Nos.305/08 & conn.cases 2 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The learned Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan submitted before us that in L.A.A. No 431/2008, this court has approved refixation of land value at Rs.1,63,020/- (coming to enhancement of 30% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in a case which was in respect of acquisition of property in the same category). We would have been inclined to follow that judgment and refix the value of lands involved in the present case at Rs.1,63,020/-. 3. Sri.E.S.Kabeer, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment in L.A.R. No.173/2005 and connected cases and submitted that if opportunity is given, the appellants will be entitled to produce better evidence and substantiate their contention that they are entitled for enhancement atleast 60% over what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. We are of the view that on the facts of this case opportunity can be given to the appellants to adduce further evidence. At the same time it is pointed out by the Smt.Latha T.Thankappan that the appellants had a claim for compensation for injurious affection for the unacquired properties as well as for additional L.A.A..Nos.305/08 & conn.cases 3 value for structures. Denial of those claims have not been appealed against and hence the learned Government Pleader requested that the order of remand should be confined to the question of land value determination only. We find force in the above submission. 5. The result is as follows; The judgment and decree under appeals are set aside. LAR Nos.223/2006, 224/2006 & 352/2006 are remanded to the Third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. That court is directed to grant opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever evidence they want to in support of their rival contentions and to pass revised judgment redetermining the market value of the lands under acquisition. It is made clear that the issues regarding the proper compensation to be awarded for the building and compensation for injurious affection have been finalised by this judgment. We are not inclined to order refund of court fee already remitted by L.A.A..Nos.305/08 & conn.cases 4 the appellants since we notice that there was laches on the part of the appellants in producing good evidence in support of their contentions. Request for refund of one third of the court fee is declined. The Reference Court will have due regard to the orders passed by this court in CM.Appln.Nos.313/2008 & 314/2008 while passing the decree and awarding interest under Section 28 of the Act on the redetermined compensation. The parties will appear before the Reference Court on 16/11/2009. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk