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 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 LA.App..No. 239 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- LAR.40/2002 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- RAMAKRISHNA SHARMA, S/O.SIVARAMKRISHNA IYER, DIRECTOR, WOOD LAND ESTATE, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT "SIVA-PARVATHI", VEERABHADRA GARDENS, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIST. COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (NH) DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO.1214 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J These appeals are preferred by the same claimant who is claimant in LAR.40/02 and L.A.R.41/02 on the files of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The acquisition was for construction of Plamoodu bridge in Pattom village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 18/08/99. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 2,15,393/- per Are. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence which consisted mainly of Exts.A1 and A2 would re-fix the land value at ` 4 lakhs per Are. 2. In these appeals the claim is that the appellant should have been awarded at least ` 5 lakhs per cent for the L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 -2- land under acquisition. There is a further claim that the Reference Court should have determined the dispute as to the correct extent of the land under acquisition. The contention is that what was actually acquired was more than the extent shown in the award. This dispute though specifically raised before the Reference Court was not considered by the Reference Court at all. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Kalkura would place strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1316/07 whereby the value of the property in the same village acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 28/04/99, four and a half months earlier was approved by this Court to be ` 6,10,493/- per Are. Sri.Kalkura placed before us a copy of the judgment in L.A.A.1316/07. L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 -3- He has also submitted that the court below went wrong in not addressing the claim as to the correct extent of the appellant's acquired property. 4. The submissions of Sri.Kalkura were opposed by Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan. Sri.Mohanan submitted that for substantiating the contentions regarding the correct extent acquired, the appellant did not adduce any reliable documentary evidence. It was only oral evidence that was adduced. Coming to the question of land value, Sri.Mohanan submitted that a reading of the impugned judgment will show that the appellant has been awarded full value reflected in the two documents i.e Exts.A1 and A1(a) relied on by the appellant. If more value is to be awarded, there must be evidence. He also submitted that if more value than that reflected in Exts.A1 and A1(a) is awarded based on the land value fixed under this Court's judgment in LAA.1316/07 L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 -4- prejudice will be caused to the Government. According to Sri.Mohanan if this Court feels that if the above judgment is to be relied on, the proper course to be done is to remit the matter to the Reference Court. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We find merit in the submissions of Sri.Kalkura based on the land value fixed under this Court's judgment in LAA.1316/07. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader the above judgment was not an item of evidence before the Reference Court and the Government did not get an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence regarding the above judgment. 6. The argument of the learned Government Pleader regarding the claim of correct extent acquired is also forceful. The dispute as to the correctness of the extent acquired is a dispute to be settled by adducing better L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 -5- evidence than what is presently adduced by the claimant. We feel that interests of justice demands that the matter be remitted back to the Reference Court. As we find laches on the part of the appellant in the matter of producing evidence before the Reference Court, we are inclined to impose conditions. 7. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. LAR.40/02 and LAR.41/02 are remitted back to the Second Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to permit the appellant to adduce more evidence for substantiating his claims for higher value of land and regarding the correct extent acquired from his possession. If the appellant/claimant adduces further evidence, Government will also be permitted to adduce counter evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge will pass revised L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 -6- award on the basis of the totality of the evidence which comes on record. Parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on 22/09/11. The learned Subordinate Judge will complete the enquiry and pass revised award within six months from that day. The learned Subordinate Judge will issue notice regarding the posting date of the appeal to the Government Pleader of the court. 8. We also order that this judgment remanding the cases to the Reference Court will become operative only subject to the following conditions:- If under the revised award, the appellant becomes eligible for more compensation than what is awarded under the impugned award such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 19/08/06 till 22/09/11. There will be a further direction that the Registry L. A. A. Nos.239 & 1214 of 2008 -7- will refund only 70% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-