IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 588 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.2/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- SECRETARY, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KILIMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & STATE ------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANKARAN SUCHETHA, MATHRUUSMARANA, OMANPALLIKKARA, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL P.O., KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN FOR R2 ADV.SMT..LIJY ANTONY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 588 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The requisitioning authority Pazhayakunnumel Grama Panchayat is the appellant. They are aggrieved by the compensation redetermined by the Reference Court in this case which pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of establishment of a private bus stand at Kilimanoor. This is a case, where even though the appellant Panchayat was a party before the Reference Court, they did not adduce any counter evidence and this resulted the court below accepting the evidence adduced by the claimant. 2. According to Sri.Siju Kamalsanan, learned counsel for the appellant, the requisitioning authority was prevented by sufficient reasons from adducing evidence in support of their contention that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is the correct value. Mr.Siju Kamalasanan drew our attention to our own judgment in L.A.A. N.587/2010 whereby we remanded L.A.A..No.588/2010 2 the matter to the Reference Court. According to the learned counsel, the same facts situation obtains in the present case. 3. Smt.Lijy Antony appearing for the 2nd respondent claimant opposed the request . According to her, the appellant Panchayat is not entitled for any opportunity for adducing evidence. Lastly, she would submit that even if this court is inclined to remand, the same may be on very stringent terms. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the copy of the judgment in L.A.A. No.587/2010 which was placed before us by Mr.Siju Kamalasanan himself. We feel that the facts situation which obtains in the present case is similar to the one which obtained in L.A.A. No. 587/2010. For the various reasons stated in that judgment, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R. No.2/2004 to the Subordinate Judges Court, Attingal. The learned Sub Judge will permit all parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective contentions. The court below will pass revised judgment on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence if any which comes to be on record pursuant to this order of remand. However, we make it clear that this L.A.A..No.588/2010 3 judgment remanding the case to the Reference Court will become operative only if the following conditions are compiled with by the appellant; i). The appellant facilitates deposit of at least 50% of the decree due to the claimant under the impugned decree within two months from today. Upon such deposit, the 2nd respondent claimant should be permitted to withdraw the amount subject to the final outcome of the LAR case. ii). The appellant will pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks from today. The Registry will refund only 50% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum to the appellant's counsel. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 25/5/2011. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk L.A.A..No.588/2010 4 L.A.A..No.588/2010 5 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ C.M.Appln. 904 of 2010 in L.A.A.No. 588 Of 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Heard both sides. The application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions; i). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the claimant/respondent either directly or through his advocate within seven days from today. ii). The appellant shall pay an equal amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit and produce receipt. Upon noticing receipts against payment of the above amounts, the Registry will send up the appeal for admission. L.A.A..No.588/2010 6 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk