IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1035 of 2005() -------------------------- LAR.109/1999 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. GOVINDAN, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, KAKKATTU VEETTIL, IRIMPANAM. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 4. VALSALA, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 5. INDIRA, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 6. VENUGOPALAN, S/O.DO. DO. DO. 7. REMA, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 8. SAROJINI, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 9. VIJAYAM, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, DO. DO. 10. ACHUTHAN NAIR, H/O.LATE SARADAMMA, DO. DO. 11. SUDHA DEVI, D/O. DO. DO. 12. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.LATE SARADAMMA, KAKKATTU VEETTIL, IRIMPANAM. 13. LEELAMMA, D/O. DO. DO. 14. VISALAM, W/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, DO. DO. 15. AJITH KUMAR, S/O. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA). 2. THE MANAGER (PROJECTS), I.B.P. CO. LTD., BUSINESS GROUP (PETROLEUM), 10 MAYOR, V.R.RAMANANTHAN ROAD, CHETPUT, CHENNAI-600 031. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal No.1035 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal being aggrieved not only by the redetermination of the market value of the land under acquisition but also by determination of the correct compensation payable for the building and other structures which existed on the property under acquisition. The acquisition was for the purpose of the second respondent pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 10.2.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.34,600/- per Are. The Reference Court, relying on Exts.A1 to A3 and the oral evidence of AWs.1 and 2, refixed the value at Rs.43,250/- per Are. The appellants relied on L.A.A.No.1035 of 2005 2 Ext.C1 Commission Report in support of their claim for enhancement towards the value of the building and other structures which existed on the property. The Commissioner recommended considerable enhancement towards the value of the building and other structures. The court below was not inclined to award any enhancement towards the value of the building and structures for the reason that the Advocate Commissioner was not examined. 2. In this appeal, the appellants have raised various grounds and we have heard Sri.P.P.Thambi, the counsel for the appellant and Mr.Santhalingam, Senior Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader also. Even though Mr.Thambi argued on all the grounds raised in the appeal, he would draw our attention to the interlocutory L.A.A.No.1035 of 2005 3 application, I.A.No.2625 of 2009 filed by him seeking admittance of a fresh document, viz. Sale Deed No.3399 of 1995 of the Sub Registry Office, Tripunithura as evidence on the side of the appellant/claimant. He would also submit that the court below was not justified in insisting that the Advocate Commissioner should be examined or Ext.C1 is relied on. According to him, Ext.C1 was part of record in the case, since the report was submitted pursuant to an inspection conducted with notice to both sides. Mr.Santhalingam, Senior counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Authority submitted that remand is necessitated due to fault of the appellant and therefore, the Requisitioning Authority and the Government should not be mulcted with the liability for interest during the period in which the appeal was pending before this Court. He requested that an opportunity be given L.A.A.No.1035 of 2005 4 to the Requisitioning Authority to file objections to Ext.C1 and to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in case the Court is inclined to pass an order of remand, sufficient safe guards may be incorporated, so that the appellant is not permitted to take advantage of the delay caused in the matter for which he himself is responsible. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions of the parties. We are of the view that the appellants can be permitted to produce certified copy of Sale Deed No.3399 of 1995 of the Sub Registry, Tripunithura as an item of evidence on their side. We are also of the view that the Requisitioning Authority can be permitted to file objections to Ext.C1. If necessary, the Requisitioning Authority can cross examine the Commissioner. However, we are inclined to afford L.A.A.No.1035 of 2005 5 that opportunity only on conditions, since we are of the view that the appellants are responsible for the delay caused in the matter of producing the document before this Court. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- 4. The judgment and decree under appeal is completely set aside. The LAR is sent back to the Reference Court. The Reference Court is directed to permit the requisitioning authorities to file objections to the commission report. The Reference Court is also directed to permit the appellant to produce certified copy of Sale Deed No.3399 of 1995 of the Sub Registry, Tripunithura as an additional item of evidence on the claimant's side. If the appellants so desire, they should be permitted to examine party or somebody who is connected with the document for the purpose of proving the transaction recorded in the document L.A.A.No.1035 of 2005 6 as a genuine transaction. It is open to the Requisitioning Authority and the Government to cross examine the person who is examined for proving the transaction recorded in Document No.3399 of 1995 as a relevant document. Since the remand has been necessitated mainly due to the fault of the appellant only, we order that in the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhancement in compensation, over and above what is awarded under the impugned judgment by virtue of the revised judgment of the Reference Court, such enhancement will not carry interest, otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, during the period from 8th October 2004 till 8th August 2009. Since the remand is necessitated to a considerable extent due to the fault of the appellant, we are inclined to order L.A.A.No.1035 of 2005 7 refund of only 50% of the amount remitted on the appeal memo as court fees. It is ordered so. The parties will appear before the court below on 14.9.2009. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/