IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No.1000 of 2005(D) -------------------------------- LAR.59/1999 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MAVELIKKARA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- GIREESAN PILLAI, GOWRI MANDIRAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Government is in appeal. The case pertains to acquisition for the Pumpa Irrigation Project. The land was in Karthikappally village. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 01/10/1980. There is some confusion regarding the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. But the court below relying on Exts.A1 and A2 re-fixed the land value at Rs.16,197/- per Are corresponding to Rs.6557.48/- per cent. It is challenging the above enhancement that this appeal is preferred. 2. Heard Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 -2- Government Pleader and those of Sri.A.R.Dileep, the learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Basant Balaji submitted that the court below was not justified in placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 since Ext.A1 was ten years subsequent to the Section 4(1) notification while Ext.A2 was eight years subsequent to that notification. Sri.Dileep while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that certain mistakes had crept into the impugned judgment and wanted us to correct those mistakes. 3. On going through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the court below was not justified in placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 when the basis document, a pre-notification document was available. Post notification document can be relied on only when L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 -3- it becomes indispensable. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the L.A.R back to the Reference Court. This is an open remand and both sides will have the permission to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. The court below will pass the revised judgment on the basis of the entirety of evidence which comes on record. However, since the claimant is responsible for this order of remand, we direct that in the event of claimant becoming eligible for further enhancement over and above what is granted under the impugned judgment, such further enhancement will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 13/08/03 till the date of the revised judgment. The parties will L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 -4- appear before the Reference Court on 30th October, 2009. 4. This appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-