IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 LA.App..No. 1577 of 2007(D) --------------------------- ( JUDGMENT DATED 21.7.2007 IN LAR 62/1999 OF additional SUB COURT, KOLLAM) APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- DEVARAJAN PILLAI, S/O.PAPPU ASSAN PUTHUVEETTIL MELATHIL THEKKATHIL (KALLELIL PUTHEN VEEDU), PUNAKKANNOOR BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) K.I.P. NO.1, KOTTAYAM. BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1577 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This is a case where the reference court answered the reference confirming the award of the land acquisition officer. According to the reference court on the day the reference case was listed for trial in the special list, the claimant's counsel sought for adjournment which was granted. But on the adjourned date, there was no representation at all for the claimant. Therefore the court below passed the impugned judgment on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the claim for enhancement and answered the reference confirming the award of the land acquisition officer. Drawing my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench in L.A.A. No. 1600/07, Sri.D.Kishore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that interests of justice demand that at least one opportunity be granted to the appellant for adducing evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the very same reference court had in L.A.R. No. 60/99 (another case pertaining to the very same acquisition project) granted LAA.No.1577/07 2 enhancement to the claimant in that case. According to the learned counsel the court could have even in the absence of the counsel relied on that judgment and answered the reference accordingly. Though the learned counsel for the appellant may be correct when he submits that the judgment in L.A.R. No. 60/99 will have considerable relevance in the present case, I am unable to agree that even in the absence of the claimant or his counsel, it was obligatory on the part of the court to have relied on L.A.R.No.60/99 or other relevant judgments and granted enhancement. At the same time, considering the ends of justice, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence for substantiating the appellant's claim for enhancement, including the judgment in L.A.R. No. 60/99. Accordingly, I set aside the judgment and decree under appeal. I remand L.A.R. No.62/99 back to the Subordinate Judges Court, Kollam. The learned Subordinate Judge will give atleast one opportunity to the appellant after the L.A.R. is re-posted for enquiry pursuant to this judgment and it is open to the appellant to adduce whatever evidence he has at his command for substantiating his claim LAA.No.1577/07 3 for enhancement including the judgment in L.A.R. No. 60/99. However, since I find that there was some negligence on the part of the appellant, I am inclined to pass the above order of remand only on condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost to the respondent through the Advocate General's office within three weeks from today. The order of remand will become operative only if the cost is paid on time. Failing payment of cost, the judgment under appeal will stand confirmed. Considering the above directions, there will be a further direction that the full court fee paid by the appellant on the appeal memorandum be refunded to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1577/07 4