IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 253 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.127/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT. ----------------------- JALALUDHEEN, S/O.ABDULKHADER, PUTHENKANJOOR, VADAKKUMBHAGOM MURI, VADAYAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH LAA 296/08 ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 253/2006 and 296/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 25, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Both these appeals are filed by the claimants in respect of cases pertaining to acquisition of lands in Vadayar village for the widening of road to the Palamkadavu bridge on the Chempu – Thalayolaparambu road. The relevant sec.4(1) notification was published on 30.7.1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6500/- per cent. Under the impugned judgment, the reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr. Mathew Philip, learned counsel for the appellant, and those of Mr. Basant Balaji, learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Mathew Philip submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was not at all justified in rejecting Exts.A1 and A2. Both these documents reveal a centage value of L.A.A. 253/2006 and 296/2008 2 Rs.20,000/-. The distance between these properties and the acquired properties was only 250 metres. These documents were rejected on the only reason that shopping centre was constructed on the lands covered by these documents. The acquired properties also have commercial potentialities and could have been utilised for constructions. 4. Lastly, the learned counsel drew our attention to the judgment of the reference court in LAR 128/2003. It is seen that in that LAR also the land acquisition officer had granted Rs.6500/- per cent. But the reference court, on the basis of the evidence which came on record in that case, re-fixed the land value at Rs.16,000/- per cent. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2. According to him Ext.A6 was challenged as a document revealing a fancy price. Despite that challenge, the claimant never examined any party connected with that document. Therefore, the court below was fully justified in rejecting Ext.A6. As for the judgment in LAR 128/2003, it was submitted by the claimant's counsel that the claimants in that case have preferred an appeal seeking re-fixation of land value at L.A.A. 253/2006 and 296/2008 3 the rate of Rs.20,000/-. The Government Pleader submitted that it is likely that the Government also has either already filed an appeal or is thinking in terms of preferring appeal. Whatever that be, we notice that the reference court on a different set of evidence granted Rs.16,000/- per cent for the property covered by LAR 128/2003. Under these circumstances we are inclined to permit the appellant to adduce fresh evidence including the judgment in LAR 128/2003, if it has attained finality, and support his claim for further enhancement. 6. Accordingly we set aside the judgments and decrees under appeal and remand the LARs back to the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam. That court will permit both sides to adduce evidence and pass revised judgments on the basis of the entire evidenvce. Refund the court fee paid on the memoranda of appeals to the appellants. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-