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 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1088 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.5/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ 1. THAZHATH VEETTIL INDIRA DEVI, `PRATHEEKSHA', ULLIYERI, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANOOJ C. DAS, S/O. INDIRA DEVI, PRATHEEKSHA, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, O.E.C.F., KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1088 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Nanminda Village in Kozhikode Taluk for the purpose of laying pipeline and for construction of water tanks. The nature of the land was wet land and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1493/- per cent in this acquisition which was pursuant to notification dated 22/6/1998. Exts.A1 and A2 were the documents produced by the claimant in support of her claim for enhancement of land value. Ext.A2, which was a post notification document, was executed three years subsequent to the date of Section 4 (1) notification. But, what the learned Sub Judge did was to make a deduction of 25% of Ext.A2 for the passage of time and to do guess work. We are unable to approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in having relied on post notification document alone for the purpose of refixing the market value of the land. Of course, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Sri.V.Santharam, the LAA.No.1088/2005 2 advocate commissioner had recommended for enhancement at the present rate. But it is trite that when advocate commissioners recommend for higher value, unless their recommendations are supported by the value reflected by the registered sale document and that registered document also placed on record, recommendations are not to be accepted. Sri.Santharam submitted that if opportunity is given, the respondent will be able to produce documents revealing higher land value at the relevant time. Considering the above submission of the learned counsel for the claimant we are inclined to grant opportunity. 2. The result is, accordingly, as follows; i). The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and the L.A.R. No.5/2001 is remanded back to the Sub Court, Kozhikode. That court is directed to permit both sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to in support of their claim and to pass revised judgment on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which LAA.No.1088/2005 3 comes on record. ii). The revised judgment as directed above shall be passed by the learned Sub Judge at the earliest and at any rate within five months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this order. Iii). The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 11/11/2009. It is made clear that in case the appellant become eligible for the enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible by virtue of the revised judgment to be passed by the Reference Court, the appellant will not be entitled for interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period from 22/7/2004 till the date of revised judgment to be passed by the Reference court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk