IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 431 of 2004 (C) --------------------------------- LAR NO.21/2003 OF SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------- OUSEPH S/O. VARGHESE, MARANGATTU VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.431 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Varappetty village for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 15/2/1997. As against the claim for Rs.25,000/-, the land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,246/- per cent only. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2 judgment, apart from the oral testimony of PW-1. Ext.A1 sale deed was not properly proved by examining any of the parties to the same. The reference court became inclined to refix the land value at Rs.7027/- per cent only. 2. In this appeal the appellant claims that land value be refixed on the basis of Ext.A1. He also claims that at least 50% value be granted in respect of injurious affection to the remainder portion of the acquired property belonging to him. Even though Sri. A.V.Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant LA.A..No.431/2004 2 has addressed us persuasively, we are unable to decide the issue finally the absence of proper evidence. We are some what impressed by the submission of the learned counsel that some compensation should have been awarded towards injurious affection to the remainder portion of the acquired property. But we find that the appellant did not take out a commission for proving before the reference court as to the extent to which the remainder portion has been affected by the acquisition. It is submitted Sri.A.V.Thomas that if opportunity is given, the appellant will be able to prove Ext.A1 document by examining one of the parties to the same or somebody else who is acquainted to the transaction recorded in Ext.A1. We are of the view that opportunity can be given to the appellant for substantiating his claim for enhancement by adducing better evidence. 3. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the LAR case back to the reference court. The reference court will give opportunity to the appellant to prove Ext.A1 document and to adduce further evidence. If application for issuance of commission is filed by the appellant in LA.A..No.431/2004 3 the context of his claim for enhancement of land value and claim for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder portion of the acquired property or proving the comparability of Ext.A1 property and the acquired property, such application will be allowed by the reference court. If the Government so desires, the Government also should be given opportunity to adduce counter evidence. 4. The parties shall appear before the reference court on 16/8/2009. The appeal will stand allowed by way of remand. Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk