IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1154 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.7/2005 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT IN THE L.A.R. ------------------------------------ REETHA GEORGE, W/O. LATE K.T.GEORGE, KATTUNILATH, PARAMEL, KARINTHALAKAPARAMBIL, C.C.NO.32/1366, NEAR PALARIVATTOM-PIPELINE JUNCTION, P.O.PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE LAR. -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),GENERAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTORITY, HUDCO PROJECT CIRCLE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 11. ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA FOR R-2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1154 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is the award of the land acquisition reference court. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30-11-1996. The property was situated in Edappally South Village and was acquired for the purposes of the Kerala Water Authority. The L.A. Officer included the land in category – II, i.e., lands enjoying frontage of Pipeline Road as well as the Civil Lines Road. It seems to us that the property was situated to a corner of the Junction where the Civil Lines Road and the Pipeline Road meet. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,98,200/- per Are corresponding to to Rs.80,000/- per cent. Before the reference court the claimant did not produce any particular document for supporting his claim for enhanced LAA. 1154/08 -2- land value which was for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs per cent. She relied on oral evidence of witnesses AWs. 1 and 2 and Exts. C1 commissioner's report and C1(a) sketch submitted by the commissioner. She relied also on A1 reported submitted by a commissioner appointed by the Munsiff's Court. The court below however, became inclined to refix the land value at 30% above the rate fixed by the L.A. Officer. This the court below did applying the rule of thumb and discarding the recommendations of the commissioner. Having gone through the evidence available on record we feel that the court below is not be blamed for what is done. Sri.S.Abdul Salam, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to document No.6961 dated 30-11-1994 of the Sub Registry, Edappally and 6930 of 1994 of Sub Registry, Edappally, two documents under which portions of the acquired properties and building situated thereon were purchased by the appellant. A perusal of one of these LAA. 1154/08 -3- documents will show that for one cent of land the appellant paid Rs.1,80,000/- per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the originals of these documents were with the Land Acquisition Officer himself, she did not produce even certified copies of these documents. According to the learned counsel, the court below should have relied on the originals in the custody of the land acquisition officer and awarded enhanced land value. Smt. Ambika Devi, standing counsel for the Water Authority submitted that in land acquisition cases under Section 18 the position of a claimant is that of a plaintiff and it is the plaintiff's burden to produce quality evidence to support his claim for enhanced land value. That has not been done in this case. If the claimant wanted to rely on his own title deed, he should have produced the documents or caused production of the documents. The same having not been done the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. The LAA. 1154/08 -4- learned Govt. Pleader would support the submissions of Smt. Ambika Devi. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having taken into account the importance of the locality, we feel that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to adduce further evidence for substantiating her claim for enhancement in land value. Even though the Government may be justified in relying on the discussions in the notes to award to support the Government's evidence against the claimant, which is actually upheld by the L.A. Officer, in this case where the Government did not rely on the title documents of the appellant. It was for the appellant to have produced either certified copy of the title document or to cause production of the original if the same is with the land acquisition officer and rely on the same. It is open to the appellant to produce a certified copy of his title document and any other documents which may support his claim for LAA. 1154/08 -5- enhanced land value before the court below. As the appellant himself is responsible for not producing the relevant documents earlier, we are of the view that the appellant should not be awarded statutory interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period between the impugned judgment and the date of this judgment. Result of the above discussion is therefore as follows: The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. LAR. No. 7 of 2005 is remitted back to the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. That court is directed to permit both sides to adduce further evidence in support of their rival claims and contentions. The court will take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence already on record and further evidence which comes to be adduced by both parties. But we make it clear that during the period from 23-7-2007 till today the appellant will not be entitled LAA. 1154/08 -6- for statutory interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on any compensation which is awarded by the reference court over and above what is awarded under the impugned judgment. In the circumstance of this case, we are not inclined to order refund of the full court fee also. Registry will refund only 80% of the court fee remitted on the appeal memo to the counsel for the appellant. Parties will enter appearance before the reference court on 17-2- 2011. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-