IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 58 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------- LAR.132/2007 of SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT :- --------------------------------------- ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, W/o.GEORGE VARGHESE, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GEORGE VARGHESE, VALUKALAYIL HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SMT.TULASI PANICKER SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., VYTTILA, N.F.GATE, THRIPOONITHURA. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, INFOPARK FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.58 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. The acquired property in Kakkanad village, Kanayannur Taluk was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 18.7.2005 for the purpose of Info Park. The L.A.Officer include the property in Category No.II and awarded Rs.60,259/- per cent. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence would refix the land value at Rs.1,37,689/- per cent. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing what is described as the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.M.Kurian, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Govt. Pleader. Smt.Latha, the learned Senior Govt. L.A.A. No.58 of 2010 -: 2 :- Pleader would oppose all the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to our judgment in L.A.A.No.464/2009. Mr.Kurian Submits that based on that judgment there is justification to grant 636% over what is awarded by the L.A.Officer. According to Mr.Kurian, though the property was included in Category No.II and as the acquired property is situated just 50 meters away from Sea Port-Air Port road, there is justification for granting more than what is legitimately due to the property in Category No.II. Smt.Latha, the learned Govt. Pleader would draw our attention to the judgment in L.A.A.No.1476/2009. She submits that in that judgment for property under Category No.I, this Court has refixed the land value at Rs.1,90,000/- per cent. According to Smt.Latha, there is no justification for awarding more than what is awarded to property under Category No.I. We find some merit in the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Govt. Pleader. We L.A.A. No.58 of 2010 -: 3 :- are convinced that the market value presently awarded by the court below is inadequate. We are not inclined to decide the issue finally in favour of the respondent. We set aside the judgment and decree and remand L.A.R.No.132/2007 to the Sub Court, Ernakulam. That Court is directed to permit both sides to adduce what ever further evidence they want to and pass revised judgment on the basis of the entire evidence including the further evidence that may be adduced by the parties. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 28.2.2011. On the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, we are not inclined to refund the full court fee. The Registry is directed to refund only 90% of the court fee paid on the appeal memo. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt