IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1363 of 2008(A) -------------------------------- LAR.218/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K. SURENDRANATH, T.C 24/1986, SARKARESWARY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.B. THANKAMMA, T.C NO. 24/1986, SARKARESWARY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R3 SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1-R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is the award of Land Acquisition Reference Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a case pertaining to acquisition of land in Thycaud village at the behest of TRIDA. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 27/06/03. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.2,71,700/- per Are. The only tangible item of evidence before the Reference Court was Ext.A1 judgment. Under Ext.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 -2- rate of Rs.5,47,289/- per Are which the Reference Court had re-fixed at Rs.17,31,306/- per Are. The court below relying practically on Ext.A1 took the view that the value of the acquired property should be at least 60% of the property shown in Ext.A1. After making some additions for the passage of time, the court below re-fixed the value at Rs.24,23,828/- per Are. 2. Various grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal and Smt.Latha T. Thankappan addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. It is submitted that there was absolutely no evidence before the court regarding comparability between Ext.A1 property and the property under acquisition. Under Ext.A1 the percentage of enhancement granted is only 400% L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 -3- while exorbitant enhancement has been given by the learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, in the absence of any evidence in the nature of a Commission Report or so, the court below was not justified in relying on Ext.A1. Thus, the only available legal evidence was the oral evidence of parties. It was not proper to have awarded enhancement based on oral evidence. 3. Resisting the submissions of learned senior Government Pleader, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the property is situated actually in an area which is equally important, if not more important than the property covered by Ext.A1. Ext.A1 acquisition L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 -4- was some six years earlier. Therefore, the properties being situated in a commercially important area of Thiruvananthapuram, additions should have been made at the rate of 15% per year. There is no infirmity in the court below for having relying on Ext.A1. In fact, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the correct market value of the acquired property will be more. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the court below was not justified in relying on Ext.A1 in the absence of any evidence in the nature of a commission report or so regarding the comparability of the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1. When the claimant L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 -5- was relying on Ext.A1, it was the duty of the claimant to have taken out a commission so that the court have a report regarding the comparability of these properties. 5. Under the above circumstances, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment. We are inclined to set aside the same and remand LAR to the Reference Court. Since the claimant is to be blamed for not having adduced appropriate evidence before the court below, the claimant will have to pay a penalty. Therefore, we say that during the period between the date of the impugned judgment and the date of the revised judgment to be passed by the Reference Court, the total enhanced compensation to which the claimant will become eligible will not carry interest L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 -6- otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- The judgment and decree are set aside. LAR.218/05 is sent back to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to permit both parties to adduce whatever evidence they want to in support of their rival contentions. Fresh decision will be taken by the Sub Court on the basis of the evidence already available on record and on the basis of the further evidence to be adduced in the case. The total enhanced compensation to which the claimant becomes eligible by virtue of revised judgment to be passed by the Reference Court pursuant to this L. A. A. No.1363 of 2008 -7- order of remand will not carry interest during the period from 23/08/07 till the date of the revised judgment under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 09/06/10. The court below will complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment within six months thereafter. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-