IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 LA.App..No. 446 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.97/2006 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- JANAKI PILLAI RETNAMMA PILLAI, DEVI SADANAM, VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A.NO.I, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 446 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Claimant is the appellant. Her property in Valakom Village of Kottarakara Taluk was acquired for the upgradation of the M.C. Road under the KSTP. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 21-12-2004. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.31461/- per Are. The reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs.62,922/- per Are. This was done not on the basis of any document of sale but on evaluating the oral evidence and doing guess work. The main ground which is raised in this appeal is that the court below did not afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant for producing a relevant document viz., document No. 89/2000 of Sub Registry, Kottarakkara. A photostat copy of that document as well as original of an application LAA.446/11 -2- for certified copy of the above document bearing an endorsement by the Registrar that he is unable to issue certified copy as the copy of the document which was kept in the Sub Registry Office was destroyed in a fire, is produced along with IA. No. 2455/11. The main argument of Mr. A.R.Dileep, learned counsel for the appellant is that the L.A.R. be remitted with a direction to consider these two documents as additional items of evidence. Smt. Rose Micheal, Government Pleader would oppose the above request of Mr. Dileep. According to her, prejudice will be caused to the Government by permitting the appellant to produce a document which was not produced before the trial court though the appellant had sufficient opportunity to do so. 2. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We are convinced that the inability of the appellant to produce certified copy of document No. LAA.446/11 -3- 89/2000 of Sub Registry, Kottarakkara before the reference court was due to a reason beyond the control of the appellant. According to us, interests of justice demands that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to produce the photostat copy of the above document as well as the original of the application submitted by the petitioner for certified copy containing the endorsement of the Sub Registrar. We are however, inclined to grant such liberty only on conditions which in our view to a great extent will protect the interest of the Government also. Result of the above discussion is as follows: The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. LAR. No. 97 of 2006 is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara. That court is directed to permit the appellant to produce the photostat copy of document No. 89 of 2000 of the Sub Registry, Kottarakkara as well as the original of the application submitted by the appellant for LAA.446/11 -4- obtainment of certified copy containing the endorsement of the Sub Registrar as additional items of evidence on the side of the appellant claimant. The appellant will also be permitted to take out a commission for getting a report about comparability of the property covered by this document and the property under acquisition. If the appellant adduces further evidence as permitted above, the Government will also be permitted to adduce counter evidence. The reference court will pass revised award on the basis of evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be on record. This order of remand however will be subject to the following conditions: 1) The appellant will forfeit 50% of the total court fee of Rs.68,400/- remitted on the appeal memo. 2) The enhanced compensation to which the appellant may become eligible by virtue of the revised award to be passed by the reference court will not carry interest LAA.446/11 -5- admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 17-1-2011 till the date of the revised award. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. However, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Return the two documents produced along with IA. No. 2455 of 2011 to Shri A.R.Dileep, counsel for the appellant for production before the court below. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-