IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 LA.App..No. 457 of 2007(D) -------------------------------------- LAR.13/1992 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------------------- ABDULKHALAM, S/O.HANEEF KUNJU, THODIYIL VEEDU, PALATHARA, VADAKKEVILA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.457 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed with a delay of six years one month and 26 days. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Kollam in L.A.R.No.13/1992. Five cents of land (0.02.02 ares of land) comprised in Sy.No.4818/9 of Vadakkevila Village which belonged to the appellant was acquired for a public purpose. Appellant was given Rs.4,500/- as land value per cent. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the appellant filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter to the Sub Court for considering his claim for enhancement. The matter was referred and numbered as L.A.R.No.12/1992. Case was posted for trial on 4.4.1997. On that day the appellant did not appear. The learned Sub Judge noted that the claimant was absent and confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging that decree and judgment this appeal is filed on 27.8.2003 with a petition to condone the delay. I have condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The land was acquired in the year 1989. Matter was referred in the year 1992 to the Sub Court. It was pending before the Sub Court till 4.4.1997. On that day it was dismissed for default. The records of the case show that on 21.6.2001 the appellant filed I.A.No.2404/2001 under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree passed and restore the case LAA No.457/2007 2 back to file. Along with I.A.No.2404/2001 the appellant filed a delay petition as I.A.No.2405/2001 for condoning the delay. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition to set aside the exparte decree and restore the reference back to file on the ground that there is no provision for the same. That order was passed on 10.12.2002. Thereafter this appeal was filed on 27.8.2003. The appeal was returned for curing the defect. There was delay in re-presenting the matter. Re- presentation delay was condoned and the petition to condone delay was also allowed. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the appellant can be given another opportunity to establish his claim for enhancement. But for the undue delay from 4.4.1997 till 21.6.2001 he is not entitled to get any interest. On 21.6.2001 appellant had filed restoration petition and on dismissal of the same he filed this appeal on 27.8.2003. I am of the view that this appeal can be allowed subject to a condition that the appellant is not entitled to get any interest from 4.4.1997 till 21.6.2001. He will be entitled to get all statutory benefits including interest for the period prior to 4.4.1997 and after 21.6.2001. In the result, appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by the court below in L.A.R.No.13/1992 are hereby set aside. L.A.R. is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal. Learned Subordinate Judge is directed to take L.A.R.No.13/1992 back to file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. As I have already stated the appellant will not be entitled to get any interest from 4.4.1997, the date on which the L.A.R. was dismissed till 21.6.2001, the date on LAA No.457/2007 3 which the restoration petition was filed. Parties shall appear before the court below on 15.3.2008. Being a very old matter the learned Subordinate Judge shall make every endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the appeal is allowed and remanded without any enquiry and the appellant was allowed to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person, it is not necessary to recover the court fee payable on this Appeal Memorandum. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks