IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1292 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.232/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- ACHAMMA JOSEPH, KALLARACKAL KADAVIL, RESIDING AT FIELD VILLA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSE GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI FOR R2 SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO FOR R2 BY G.P.SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 1293 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ........................................... L.A.A.NOS.1292 & 1293 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J: The learned counsel for the requisitioning authority - second respondent in both these appeals seeks adjournment, but Sri. Jobi Jose Kondody - the learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1533/1999 and points out that the above judgment pertains to the property which was lying adjacent to the properties in question belonging to the very same appellant. The learned counsel submitted that one of the cardinal issues raised was regarding the correctness of the categorization made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The argument of the learned counsel was that the Land Acquisition Officer committed the mistake of including different portions of a larger holding belonging to the appellant in different categories. Reference was made by the learned counsel in this context to the judgment of this Court reported in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala (1967 KLT L.A.A.NOS.1292 & 1293 OF 2009 : 2 : 1067). We feel that the request of the learned counsel for the appellant that the LAR cases be remanded to the reference court for a fresh decision for deciding all issues including the issue regarding correctness of the categorization should be granted. 2. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeals and remand L.A.R.Nos.232/2003 and 233/2003 to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala for a fresh decision. Parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 7.9.2011. The reference court will allow the appellant and the requisitioning authority and also the Government to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. The revised award will be passed settling all issues including the issue regarding correctness of the category in which the appellant's properties are to be placed. However, this will be subject to a condition that in case the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation over and above what was awarded in the judgments impugned in these appeals, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest under Section 28 of the L.A.A.NOS.1292 & 1293 OF 2009 : 3 : Land Acquisition Act during the period from 29.11.2008 till this date (22.08.2011). In view of lack of promptness on the part of the appellant in adducing evidence promptly, the appellant will have to forfeit a portion of the court fee remitted. The Registry will refund only 80% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the appellant. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above directions and observations. Sd/= PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/= C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. cl