IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1174 of 2003() -------------------------- LAR.42/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): STRANGER ----------------------------- KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KURIAN GEORGE, KOLATHUPARAMBILAYA PUNNAPPARAMBIL, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1174 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Counsel for the claimant/respondent seeks time. But, we notice that the prominent ground on which the appeal is filed by the Kottayam Municipality is that the Requisitioning Authority is not made as a party before the Reference Court. The ground is fairly strong in view of the judgment of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995(2) KLT, 683) which was approved by the Supreme Court also. It is trite that the Requisitioning Authority for whose purpose lands are acquired should be made parties and should be given an opportunity to participate in L. A. A. No.1174 of 2003 -2- the enquiry before the Reference Court. Following that judgment, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand L.A.R.42/99 before the Sub Court, Kottayam. The Sub Court, Kottayam is directed to allow applications for impleadment, if any, filed by the Kottayam Municipality within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment and implead the Requisitioning Authority also as a party to the LAR. The learned Subordinate Judge will afford opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever further evidence they have in support of the rival contentions and will pass the revised judgment on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which comes on record. 2. Refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the learned counsel for the appellant. Parties will appear before the court below on L. A. A. No.1174 of 2003 -3- 16/11/09. 3. However, having regard to the importance of the locality where the acquired property was situated, we direct the learned Subordinate Judge to release 50% of the amount presently under deposit to the claimant/respondent subject to the final outcome of the LAR case. This appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-