IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 662 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.366/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- MAHESWARY AMMA, D/O.JANAKI AMMA, ARAPPURA VEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 005. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), PWD (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A NO. 662 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Reference Court . The property was in Peroorkada village and the acquisition was for the purpose of expansion programme of Composite Group and IISU of ISRO. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 28/2/2004. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category H and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.15,931/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment has refixed the land value at Rs.48,740/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging the award passed by the Reference Court. We have heard the submissions of Sri.G. Ram Mohan learned counsel for the appellant and also those of Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar learned senior Government Pleader for the Government. 3. Sri.Ram Mohan drew our attention to the judgment of L.A.A No. 662 /2011 2 this court in L.A.A. No.274/2011 and submitted that the above judgment should cover the issue regarding the market value. Mr.Ram Mohan requested that the appeal be allowed and the market value be refixed at Rs.1,79,542/- per Are. However, the learned counsel himself would very fairly point out that the impugned judgment suffers some infirmity as the same has been passed in the absence of the requisitioning authority. 4. The learned senior Government Pleader C.R.Shyamkumar submitted that of late this court is not following the judgment in L.A.A. No.274/2011 straight away. This court is remanding similar appeals to the Reference Court, so that the whole issue can be decided by the Reference Court taking into account the judgment in L.A.A. No.274/2011 also. In the instant case remand necessarily has to be made as the requisitioning authority was not a party before the Reference Court, so submitted the Government Pleader. 5. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree warrants interference. We set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R. No.366/2006 to the IInd L.A.A No. 662 /2011 3 Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Sub Judge is directed to implead "the Chief Construction Engineer, Civil Engineering Division, Department of Space, Thiruvananthapuram" as a respondent in the LAR case and issue notice to him. The learned Sub Judge will pass revised award after permitting the appellant, the Government as well as the additional respondent,the requisitioning authority, opportunity for adducing whatever further evidence they want to. Fresh award will be passed on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is open to the appellant to place reliance on the judgment in L.A.A No.274/2011 and the requisitioning authority can adduce evidence showing that the property covered by that judgment is not comparable to the property which is subject matter in this appeal. While passing the award, it should be kept in mind by the learned Sub Judge that the property in question is eligible to be included only in the last category i.e. "H" category. If under the revised award to be passed by the Reference Court, the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest under Section 28 from 16/10/2009 till date L.A.A No. 662 /2011 4 ( 8/12/2011). Since we notice some laches on the part of the appellant in adducing proper evidence at the relevant time and in not pointing out the infirmity of non junction of the requisitioning authority to the reference court, we are not inclined to order refund of the full court fee remitted on the appeal memorndum. The Section will refund only 50 % of the court fee presently remitted (50% of the one third court fee) to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk L.A.A No. 662 /2011 5