IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 160 of 2008(D) -------------------------- (JUDGEMENT AND DECREE IN L.A.R.NO. 5/03) APPELLANT: APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT IN THE LAR ------------------------------------------- 1. VALIYATH VALIYAVEETTIL NARAYANIAMMA, VALIYATHA VALIYAVEETTIL, PAYYANNUR THERU, PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 2. T.K.VIJAYAN, VALIYATHA VALIYAVEETTIL, PAYYANNUR THERU, PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 3. T.K.PREMAN, VALIYATHA VALIYAVEETTIL, PAYYANNUR THERU, PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 4. T.K.SURESH BABU, VALIYATHA VALIYAVEETTIL PAYYANNUR THERU, PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. T.K.SULEKHA, VALIYATHA VALIYAVEETTIL, PAYYANNUR THERU, PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 6. T.K.SUDHA, VALIYATHA VALIYAVEETTIL, PAYYANNUR THERU, PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 7. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FCI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R7 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.318/08 IN L.A.A.NO.160/08 DISMISSED 16-07-2008 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 160 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal pertains to acquisition of 1.80 Ares of wet land at Payyannur pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 21-11-1998. The land acquisition officer fixed the land value at Rs. 2995/- per cent. The reference court would re-fix it at Rs. 7,000/- per cent. Though the respondent claimant relied on Exts.A1, A2, C1 Commissioner's report and the oral testimonies of AW 1 and AW2, the Commissioner, the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to accept any of the above items of evidence. Instead what the learned Judge did was to call for the records relating to L.A.R. No. 10/3 and 13/3 (other cases relating to acquisition pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification) and to grant enhancement at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per cent. 2. The Registry has reported that the judgment in L.A.R. Nos. 10/03 and 13/03 have attained finality in the sense that there were no appeals against those judgments. The learned Government Pleader LAA.No.160/08 2 submitted that in L.A.R. Nos. 10/03 and 13/03 the properties involved were dry lands only and in other two cases - L.A.R. Nos. 14/3 and 15/3, the same court had considered the claims for enhancement in respect of wet lands also and by judgment in those two cases, the land value for wet land has been re-fixed at Rs. 4,500/-. It was without noticing the above aspect of the matter and under a wrong impression that the property involved in these cases were dry lands that the learned Subordinate Judge granted Rs. 7,000/- per cent as value for these properties. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the correctness of the above submission. Though time was sought for, I am not inclined to grant time since I am sure that ground No. F has been raised by the Government responsibly. I am therefore inclined to remand the matter back to the court. The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and L.A.R. case is remanded back to the Sub Court. Payyannur. Parties will appear before the Sub Court, Payyannur on 18/8/2008. That court will permit all the parties to adduce further evidence, if they so choose and will pass revised judgment on the basis LAA.No.160/08 3 of the entire evidence on record. While taking decision as directed above, the court should notice that the properties involved in these cases are wet lands and not dry lands. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.160/08 4