IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1279 of 2005(D) --------------------------------- LAR.150/1999 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAR ----------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (HR) BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & THE 1ST REPONDENT IN LAR -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KALLEEKKAL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKAM MURI, PULIPPAD VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN FOR R1 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1279 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Requisitioning Authority is in appeal and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Cheppad village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 17/06/96 for the purposes of the National Thermal Power Corporation's Kayamkulam project. The Requisitioning Authority is in appeal. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category- VIII (inferior single crop wetlands without road frontage) and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.735/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence consisted of AW1's oral testimony and Ext.A1 L. A. A. No.1279 of 2005 -2- judgment. There was no counter evidence to the claimant's evidence except Ext.B1 Mahazar. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1. But the learned Subordinate Judge noticed that there was no counter oral evidence adduced by the Government or the Requisitioning Authority and therefore, the learned Judge accepted the version of AW1 that his property under acquisition was enjoying frontage of road. We are unable to approve the action of the Learned Subordinate Judge in having accepted the contentions of the claimant that the property under acquisition was enjoying road frontage. The Mahazar will show that the acquired property did not enjoy road frontage. But the Mahazar indicates that on the northern boundary of the property under acquisition is other properties L. A. A. No.1279 of 2005 -3- belonging to the appellant. 2. The argument of Sri.T.K.Marthandan Unnithan, the learned counsel for the respondent is that on the northern side of such other property, there was road. This may be correct. But according to us, whether this is correct is a matter to be established before the court of law by the claimant by adducing better quality evidence than his own oral testimony as AW1. Report of the Commissioner on the basis of the local inspection would have been the best evidence. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and remand the case to the court below affording opportunity to both sides to adduce whatever evidence they want to. 3. The Result is that the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. L.A.R.150/99 is remanded L. A. A. No.1279 of 2005 -4- to the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. That court is directed to permit both sides to adduce whatever evidence they want to and to pass revised judgment on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which comes on record. Parties will appear before the Mavelikkara Sub Court on 11/11/09. That court will pass revised judgment within four months thereafter. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the appellant or the appellant's counsel. Transmit the records forthwith back to the Mavelikkara Sub Court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-