IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 242 of 2009(A) ------------------------------- LAR.99/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------ P.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.ACHUTHAN, P.O.MOORIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACUQISITION, THALASSERY. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.242 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. His property in Manantheri village of Thalassery Taluk was acquired for the purpose of the Industrial Growth Centre at Valiyavelichem. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26/05/95. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 175/- per cent. Under the impugned award the Reference Court has enhanced it to 700 per cent. According to the appellant what is awarded by the Reference Court is quite inadequate. 2. We have heard submissions of Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned senior Government Pleader for the Government. Even though Sri.Narayanan argued that the rate fixed by the Reference Court is L. A. A. No.242 of 2009 -2- inadequate in view of the evidence on record and Sri.Shyamkumar argued that the evidence on record will not justify more than what is awarded, we are not inclined to consider the merits of the appeal. We notice that the acquisition was for the purposes of KSIDC. According to us, the KSIDC, the Requisitioning Authority should have been made a party to the LAR cases in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995(2) KLT, 683) and many other cases. Hence, for the reason that the Requisitioning Authority is not made a party, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand LAR.99/97 to the Sub Court, Thalassery. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to implead the Requisitioning Authority/the KSIDC as an additional respondent in the LAR case and issue notice to them. The learned Sub Judge will invite pleadings from the KSIDC also and conduct further enquiry. In the enquiry all parties should be given opportunity to adduce further evidence in support of their rival contentions and claims. Fresh award will be L. A. A. No.242 of 2009 -3- passed on the basis of the evidence which comes to be on record. We are not refunding the court fee remitted on the appeal memo. 1/3 court fee remitted will be forfeited by the appellant. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE