IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 86 of 2010() & C.O.52/2010 ------------------------ LAR.9/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD, SANKARAMANGALAM,CHAVARA KOLLAM-REPRESENTED BY THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER(P&A). BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- 1. JASMINE FERNANDEZ,MARY'S LIGH COTTAGE, PONMANA. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY DIST. COLLLECTOR,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI. K.SIJU FOR R1 SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, ALONG WITH CO 52/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 86 OF 2010 & C.O. NO. 52/2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal and the Cross Objection pertain to acquisition of land in Panmana village for mining purpose of the Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd., the appellant. We had occasion to deal with a large number of appeals pertaining to acquisition of identical properties for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. By our judgment dated 8/6/2010 in L.A.A. Nos.2209/2008 and 1294/2009 and connected cases, we set aside the award of the Reference Court and remanded the LARs to the Reference Court for fresh decision. Since under the award, which is impugned in this appeal and Cross Objection, there was a finding by the Reference Court that the judgment which was impugned in L.A.A. No.2209/2008 was the most suited document to be relied on for the purpose of determining the market value of the land and since we have already remanded the LAR corresponding to L.A.A. No.2209/2008, we are of the L.A.A.No.86/2010 &C.O .52/10 2 view that the impugned judgment warrants interference. Hence for the various reasons stated in the common judgment referred to above, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the LAR No.9/2002 to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. That Court is directed to take a fresh decision as to the correct market value of lands acquired after giving opportunity to all the parties to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. Since L.A.R. No.9/02 is going back to the Reference Court, the memorandum of Cross Objection is also disposed of accordingly. As we find that both the appellant as well as the claimants were responsible for not producing proper documents before the Reference Court, we direct to refund only 75% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum as well as the memorandum of Cross Objection. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk