IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27831 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 5596/2009 AND IA.5597/09 IN LAR.85/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHA DEVI, D/O. APPUKUTTAN RAJA, KRISHNA POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUSITION THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R3 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1 AND 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.27831/09 - 2 - APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.341/04. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN IA.5596/09 IN LAR.85/06 P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN IA.5597/09 IN LAR.85/06 P4 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.5596/09 IN LAR.85/06 P4(A) COPY OF THE IA.5597/09 IN LAR.85/06. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27831 of 2009 Y `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the claimant. She filed an application for receiving an additional document on record and also another application for issuance of Commission to make a comparative evaluation of the property covered by that document and the property involved in the acquisition. The document is dated 01-03- 2004. It is stated that the notification leading to the acquisition was issued thereafter in 2005. LAR was registered in 2006. The additional document was offered on the plea that the petitioner noticed the document only very recently and she could not produce it at the time of evidence or at the time of comparison of the properties by the Advocate Commissioner. While it may be true that the evidence was closed, it appears that the petitioner was vigilant, the Commission was taken out earlier and evidence has been adduced. Obviously therefore, being a land acquisition matter, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity to bring on record the document and to have a WPC.27831/09 : 2 : Commission taken out for this purpose, the evidence also needs to be reopened. Taking into consideration the purpose of acquisition, I deem it appropriate that a lenient view is taken in the case of the petitioner. The finding of the court below that the reliefs sought for are highly belated is, therefore, vacated and the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned orders. I.A.Nos.5596/09 and 5597/09 will accordingly stand allowed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge