IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 FAO.No. 127 of 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2005 IN IA.2292/2004 IN LAR.204/1994 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT: APPLICANT/CLAIMANT INDIRA, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PUTHUVEEDU, PALACE WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.O. NO. 127 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. This appeal is filed against the order dated 20.12.2005 in I.A.No.2292 of 2004 in L.A.R.No.204 of 1994, on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam. The appellant is the claim petitioner. It is seen that the Reference Court has dismissed I.A.No.2292 of 2004 treating the same as a review petition. The petition was filed apparently for reviewing the judgment dated 21.6.2004 in L.A.R.No.204 of 1994. The judgment reads as follows: “Claimant not present. Counsel present. Prayed. Rejected since the claimant is absent and not adduced any evidence to substantiate the claim for enhanced compensation. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is confirmed as just and proper.” 2. There cannot be any dispute that an appeal will not lie against an order rejecting the review petition. However, it is pointed out before us that the petition was actually intended to be filed under Order IX Rule 9, but unfortunately and wrongly shown as a petition under Order XLVII Rule 1. It is clear from the judgment that the reference has not been answered by the court on merits. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel before this Court, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of justice that an opportunity is given to the F.A.O.. NO.127 OF 2008 :: 2 :: appellant/claimant to adduce evidence before the Reference Court, with a condition that the claimant shall not be entitled for interest at the rate of 15% for the period caused by the delay. We are fortify fortified in making the condition as above in view of the decision of this Court in Shahida Beevi v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 206). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2005 in I.A.No.2292 of 2004 in L.A.R.No.204 of 1994. We also set aside the judgment in L.A.R.No.204 of 1994, dated 21.6.2004. In the event of any enhancement being granted, the claimant shall not be entitled for interest at the rate of 15% for the period from 21.6.2004 to this date. The parties will appear before the Reference Court on 12.12.2008. The Reference Court shall answer the reference in accordance with law within another three months. The appeal is allowed as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/