IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17359 of 2010(T) -------------------------- LAR.276/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SMT.ALICE, W/O.LATE KURUVILLA, MANIAMKOKAITHAKOTTIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. ANOOP.M.KURUVILLA, S/O.LATE KURUVILLA, MANIAMKOKAITHAKOTTIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. SANOOP.M.KURUVILLA, S/O.LATE KURUVILLA, MANIAMKOKAITHAKOTTIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. MR.JOSE, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, MANIAMKOKAITHAKOTTIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP SRI.LIJOY PARACKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 17359 of 2010 EXHIBITS ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------ P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DT.03.10.2009. P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.12.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) Nos. 17359 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibit P3 order passed by the Sub Judge, Ernakulam in I.A No.5590/09 in LAR 276/08. 2. The petitioners are the claimants in LAR 276/08 before the Subcourt, Ernakulam. The first petitioner is a widow and second and third petitioners are sons of the first petitioner. Fourth petitioner is the elder brother of the Late husband of the petitioner, who is now stated to be working at Hyderabad. An extent of 1.30 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.104/08 of Thekkumbhagam Village, Kanayannur Taluk was acquired for the construction of a bridge across the Thattappillykkattupuzha as per the notification dated 15.07.2006. The land acquisition officer awarded a total amount of Rs.4,93,822.27/- (Rupees Fourt Lakhs Niney Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two and Paise Twenty Seven only). 2 WP (C) Nos. 17359 of 2010 The petitioners had received the amount under protest, as they claimed higher value for the said land and thereafter the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Court for adjudication. 3. The petitioners had filed an advance petition in IA No.3896/09 and also filed a commission application in I.A No.3897/09. Both the I.As were allowed and the commissioner inspected the site on 27.06.2009. A copy of the commissioners report has been produced as Exhibit P1. The said report was filed on 03.10.2009. 4. While the commission report was awaited, the petitioners had filed an application to remove the case from the list on 07.07.2009, as per Exhibit P2. The said application was dismissed and an award was passed against the petitioners. 5. Thereafter a review petition was filed seeking for a review. It stands dismissed by Exhibit P3 order. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 3 WP (C) Nos. 17359 of 2010 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners have got valid evidence to justify their claims for compensation. As there is no decision on the merits of their claim for higher compensation, they may be granted a fresh opportunity to lead evidence. The non- appearance on 07.07.2009 was due to valid reasons, it is pointed out. 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. Learned Sub Judge while dismissing the review petition was of the view that the petitioner had not produced any documents even when the matter was included in the list. After finding that there is no reason to review the order, the review petition was dismissed. 8. The above state of affairs show that, the parties are left without any adjudication of their claim on merits. Even if there were some lapses on the part of the petitioners interest of justice requires a consideration of the claim on merits. It is submitted by the learned 4 WP (C) Nos. 17359 of 2010 counsel for the petitioners that they have got documents and evidence to substantiate their contentions for the claim for enhancement. Therefore by taking a lenient view of the matter sufficient opportunity can be allowed to the petitioners to adduce evidence. IA 5599/09 in LAR 276/2008 is allowed, and the judgment and decree will stand set aside. Hence, Exhibit P3 order is quashed. There will be a direction to reopen LAR 276/08 for adjudication of the matter on merits, and allow the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. rkc