IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 406 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.15/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN LAR: -------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),KOZHIKODE. BY SRI.P.C.IYPE, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LAR: ----------------------- 1. T.S.RADHAMADHAVAN,S/O.THATTANKANDY SADANANDAN,NOW R/AT TC VILLA,GANDHI ROAD, PO KOZHIKODE BEACH,CALICUT 673 032. 2. THE SECRETARY ,CALICUT CORPORATION. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R2 SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... L.A.A.NO.406 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The Government is in appeal. The property was in Nellikode village. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of a Community Hall for the Corporation. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent in this acquisition which was on the basis of Section 4 (1) notification published on 27.7.2003. It was on Ext.A1 document that claimants relied on in support of their claim for the enhanced value. Ext.A1 reflected the land value at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per cent. Ext.A1 was a post notification document in the sense that the same was executed one month after the Section 4(1) notification was promulgated. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned award has taken the view that the difference between Ext.A1 and Section 4(1) notification was only one month and has proceeded to ignore that difference. 2. According to us, the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in placing reliance on post notification in this case where pre notification was admittedly available L.A.A.NO.406 OF 2011 : 2 : cannot be approved. We are unable to sustain the impugned award, but at the same time we find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the rate awarded by the L.A. Officer was grossly inadequate. Keeping that in mind, we set aside the impugned judgment and degree and remand the LAR for reconsideration by the Learned Subordinate Judge. There will be a direction that the Government shall deposit 50% of the total decree debt due as on date. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows: 3. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. LAR.No.15/2007 is remanded back to the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, The learned Subordinate Judge will permit the parties Government/appellant and the claimant as well as the requisitioning authority to adduce further evidence in support of their rival contentions. A fresh award will be passed on the basis of the evidence on record and the evidence which is going to be adduced by the parties. However, we make it clear that this judgment remanding LAR to the Sub Court will become operative only subject to L.A.A.NO.406 OF 2011 : 3 : the following conditions: The Government deposits 50% of the total decree debt due as on date within a period of three months from today. Upon such deposit, the claimants/respondents will be permitted to withdraw the amount subject to the final outcome of the LAR proceedings. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl