IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 905 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.196/2003 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SWAMI MUNI NARAYANA PRASAD, NARAYANA GURUKULAM, KODAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): REFERRING OFFICERS & STATE ----------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(L.A.), K.S.E.B. KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C.DIVISION, K.S.E.B., MYLATTY, S.S.COMPOUND, KASARAGODE. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1&2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MADHUBEN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No. 905 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December 2011 . J U D G M E N T A reference is made under section 3(2) of Land Acquisition Act before the Sub Court. An extent of 0.0320 hectare of land comprised in R.S. no.2/3 of Kodakkad Village in Hosdurg Taluk for the purpose of Kerala State Electricity Board. Award dated 30.11.2001 was passed and the compensation was fixed at `.24,195/-. Advance possession of land was taken on 27.12.1999 Since claimant did not produce any document to prove his right over the land, reference was made under section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act. 2. A written statement was filed by so called power of attorney of claimant. Evidence was adduced. AW1 was examined. Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 were marked. There was no rival claim. The court below found that power of attorney was issued, in order to conduct some other cases and not this case, since number referred to Ext.A1 Power of attorney in LAR.196/03 and not LAR 197/03. 3. The court below also found that evidence of AW1 who is LAA.905/06 2 the power of attorney holder is not acceptable. The details shown in document produced as Ext.A2 do not tally with the details of the survey number of the property which is acquired. There is such discrepancy in tax receipt also. No clarification what so ever was made at the time of evidence. Therefore, the court found that claimant is not entitled to get the amount in deposit. This appeal is filed challenging the said finding. 4. Heard both sides. It is conceded by learned counsel for appellant that there is a mistake in the number of case shown in Ext.A1. It is also conceded that there is a difference in the survey number shown in the document. But it is submitted that it can be explained. The document relates to same property, which is acquired in this case, but the claim may not be rejected only because the mistake is not clarified. It is also submitted that claimant is prepared to give evidence and file written statement and an opportunity may be given to him. It is also pointed out that the extent of land is below one cent and amount is Rs.24,195/-. The claimant has not raised any objection to the award, but only sought for releasing the amount to the claimant. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that reference was made only because claimant was not able to substantiate his LAA.905/06 3 evidence by producing satisfactory document to prove his right over the property acquired. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that written statement is not filed by the so called claimant, referred to in reference. But it is filed by a person who has no authority to file the same by virtue of the discrepancy in the number of the case referred to in Ext.A1. I am also satisfied that there are some discrepancy in the survey number shown in the document produced and it requires clarification. I am of the view that claimant may be given an opportunity to make his claim, by filing written statement and also for proving his right over acquired property. Hence the following order is passed: 1. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 2. The parties shall appear before the court below on 30.3.2013. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. // True copy // sou. LAA.905/06 4 K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------- L.A.A.No. 905 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of October 2011 . J U D G M E N T No representation for appellant on the second consecutive posting. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. sou. // True copy // P.A. to Judge