IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1302 of 2003(A) --------------------------- LAR.47/1996 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- ADVOCATE ABRAHM MANNAICKAL, MANAICKAL VEEDU, CHITTOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. 2. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAERY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1302 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant against the judgment and decree of the land acquisition reference court. The acquisition was of property in Pathanamthitta town and the purpose was formation of ring road A1- A1 segment, B1 and B1 segment. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 18-05-1992. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 697.97 per cent which was refixed by the court at Rs. 6,000/- per Are. 2. Even though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal, the ground which is seriously raised and pursued by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of argument is that the court below should have granted enhancement on the basis of the judgment of the same court dated 30-10-2002 in L.A.R.No.80/89 and in fact a certified copy of the above judgment is produced along with this appeal. LAA.No.1302/03 2 3. According to Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader, the judgment in L.A.R.No.80/89 cannot have any relevance in this case. That acquisition was for a different purpose, the notification was different and the land acquisition officer had also awarded a different rate for the property in that case, so submitted the Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant however would submit that the property in L.A.R.No.80/89 was also in Pathanamthitta and the judgment in L.A.R.No.80/89 has been rendered on the basis of a thorough enquiry as to the market value of the properties in Pathanamthitta at the relevant time in that case. In the instant case, it will be possible to determine the market value by making suitable additions to the value given under L.A.R.No.80/89. 5. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that since the copy of judgment in L.A.R.No.80/89 was not produced before the reference court, the appellant can be permitted to produce the same before the reference court so that the reference court gets an opportunity to appreciate the LAA.No.1302/03 3 same in the first instance. Accordingly, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, we remand L.A.R.No.47/1996 of the Pathanamthitta Sub Court to that court. That court will permit the appellant to produce the judgment in L.A.R.No.80/89 dated 30-10-2002 or any other pre-notification sale document pertaining to property in the same village and prove the same in accordance with law. If the respondent/government is desirous of adducing counter evidence, the court will grant permission to the respondent. Further enquiy pursuant to this order of remand will be completed and revised judgment will be passed at the earliest and at any rate within five months of receiving copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1302/03 4 sv.