IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1057 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.295/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1. ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------ 1. V.K.SUNITHA, D/O.VASANTHI, KUMARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, VAIKALATHU MURI, ATTIPRA. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS (KERALA), KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SMT.M.HEMALATHA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1057 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Heard the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T.Thankappan and Smt.Hemalatha, who lodged caveat on behalf of the claimant. The Government Pleader drew our attention to the judgment of this court in L.A.A. Nos.1332,1955,2478/2008 & 13,88,44,68/2009, which were all cases pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose and pursuant to the very same notification dated 17/12/2003. She requested that the following the reasons stated in that judgment, the judgment impugned may be set aside and the case be remanded to the reference court. 2. Taking exception to the above submission, Smt.Hemalatha drew our attention to the judgment of another Division Bench of this court in L.A.A. No.2319/2008, under which this court has approved enhancement granted by the reference court in a acquisition for the same purpose pursuant to the very same notification of 17/12/2003. She submitted that this court under the judgment in L.A.A. No.2319/2008 has not only LA.A..No.1057/2009 2 approved the enhancement granted by the judgment, which was impugned in that appeal, but also approved the action of the reference court in giving proportionate increase or decrease in respect of other categories. She, therefore, requested that the appeal be dismissed following the view taken by this court in L.A.A. No.2319/2008. 3. We have gone through the judgment in L.A.A. Nos.1332/2008 series and the judgment in L.A.A. No.2319/2008. Under the judgment in L.A.A. No.1332/2008 series, this court set aside the judgment of the reference court in a number of cases pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose pursuant to a notification dated 17/12/2003 and remanded all the reference cases back to the reference court giving opportunity to all parties to adduce evidence. L.A.A. No.2319/2008 was in respect of acquisition of properties in a different category in which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.15623/- unlike the present case where the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,30,500/- per Are. It can be seen from the judgment in L.A.A. No.2319/2008 that the reference court in that LA.A..No.1057/2009 3 case had found that the property under acquisition was eligible to be included in a superior category. The Reference Court included the property in category 10, which was approved by this court. Though the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.2319/2008 contains a observation that the reference court has given proportionate increase or decrease in respect of other categories, it is not known as to what were categories were included in the case decided by the reference court. We are sure that the case decided by the reference court did not involve all the 16 categories, which were involved in the acquisition for electronic Techno Park. We are inclined to follow the judgment in L.A.A. Nos.1332/2008 series and remand L.A.R. No.295/2006 to the reference court. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal adopting the reasons stated in the common judgment of this court in L.A. A. No.1332/2008 series. The Reference Court will afford opportunity to the claimant, appellant Government, as well as to the requisitioning authority to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. It is open to the claimant to produce judgment of this court in L.A.A.2319/2008 before the Reference LA.A..No.1057/2009 4 Court. The Reference Court will take fresh decision on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which comes on record after remand. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk