IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 1285 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.166/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT; ------------------------ 1. SAINAMKUTTY, BISMI MANZIL, PATTATHIL MURI, MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUMARANASSAN SMARAKA COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R2 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R2 SRI.A.AHZAR FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NO.1007/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A. Nos.1007 & 1285 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. These are appeals preferred by the Government against the award of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Kumaranasan Smarakam at Thonakkal. The Government has raised various grounds challenging what they describe as the excessiveness of the compensation refixed by the court below. 2. We are not inclined to examine the merits of those grounds. On a perusal of the lower court records, particularly the proceedings paper relating to two LARs, we find that though the requisitioning authority -the Secretary, Kumaranassan Smaraka Committee Thiruvananthapuram is party to the reference, the court below did not serve notice of the LAR cases on the requisitioning authority. It is trite by various decisions, including that of this court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 683), that in a reference under LAA.Nos.1007 & 1285 /2009 2 Section 18, the requisitioning authority should be afforded with opportunities to participate in the enquiry, so that they can support the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As in these cases, the requisitioning authority is not served with notice regarding the enquiry in the two LAR cases, the judgment and decree under appeal will have to go. 3. We set aside the judgment and decree under appeal on that ground alone and remand LAR Nos.166/2005 and 155/2005 to the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Sub Judge is directed to pass a revised award in all these LAR cases after ensuring that the requisitioning authority is served with notice of the LAR cases and that the said authority is given opportunity to participate in the enquiry as to the correct market value to be fixed for the properties in question. 4. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority is before us today in connection with writ petition Nos.2247/2011 an 27056/2009. As directed by us, Mr.Sohan noticed this judgment . We therefore direct all the parties including the requisitioning authority to enter appearance LAA.Nos.1007 & 1285 /2009 3 before the Court below on 16/3/2011. The learned Subordinate Judge will conduct enquiry and pass revised award at the earliest. The requisitioning authority should be permitted to raise all available contentions including the legal contentions. It is submitted that one of the claimants is no more. Impleadment application from the legal representatives of that claimant should be entertained by the learned Subordinate Judge, who will ensure that the legal representatives of that claimant also come on record. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk