IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 340 of 2011(D) -------------------------- LAR.35/2002 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SECRETARY,DARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT AIRPORT P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R2 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 925/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos.925 OF 2008 & 340 OF 2011 & C.M.Appl.No.803/2011 in LAA 340/2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. L.A.A. No.925/2008 is preferred by the requisitioning authority Calicut Airport against the judgment of the Reference Court, Manjeri in L.A.R. No.35/2002. 2. Under challenge in L.A.A.No.340/2011 preferred by the Claimant, the Secretary of Darul Uloom Association, is the judgment and decree of the Reference Court, Manjeri in L.A.R. No.35/2002. The acquisition was of land in Nediyiruppu village and was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5/5/1999. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5547/- per cent. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence which came on record, refixed the land value at Rs.8,000/- per cent. 3. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing what LAA.Nos.925/2008 & 340/2011 2 is described as gross inadequacy of the compensation refixed by the Reference Court. Along with this appeal, the appellant has produced Annexures 1 and 2 judgments. Annexures 1 and 2 pertain to acquisition of land in the same and nearby villages for the purpose of expansion of the runway of the Calicut Air Port. Under Annexures 1 and 2 it is seen that this court has refixed the land value at the rates much higher than the rate of Rs.8,000/- per cent awarded under the impugned judgment. Sri.M.P.Prakash learned counsel for the appellant requested that Annexures 1 and 2 be relied on and the appeal be allowed and the market value be refixed in terms of Annexures 1 and 2. 4. Sri.N.N.Suganapalan, learned senior counsel for the requisitioning authority submitted that this court placing reliance on Annexures 1 and 2 straight away will cause serious prejudice to the requisitioning authority. Before the LAO only Exts.A1 and A2 were produced . Ext.A2 was post notification document which is liable to be rejected. Ext.A1 was in respect of small bit purchased for the erection of mobile tower. Ext.A1 also has been rejected on valid reasons. The learned senior counsel submitted that even if this court feels that Annexures 1 and 2 will have LAA.Nos.925/2008 & 340/2011 3 some relevance in determination of the correct market value of the land under acquisition, the proper course is to remand the matter to the Reference Court. 5. We find force in the above submissions of the senior counsel. If Annexures 1 and 2 are straight away adopted by us, prejudice will be caused to the requisitioning authority. We are, therefore, inclined to pass only an order of remand. But, we find that delay of 1185 days has been caused in the matter of filing this appeal. We also notice that there was lethargy on the part of the appellant in producing proper evidence before the Reference Court. For these reasons, we are inclined to impose conditions for order of remand to operate. 6. The result of the above discussion, therefore, is as follows; i). The Judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. ii). L.A.R. No.35/2002 is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri. The learned Sub Judge will permit the appellant to produce Annexures 1 and 2 and any other documents in support of the appellant's claim for enhanced land value. After the appellant produces evidence, the requisitioning LAA.Nos.925/2008 & 340/2011 4 authority and the Government also should be permitted to adduce rebuttal evidence. The learned Sub Judge will pass revised award taking into account the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be record pursuant to this order of remand. 7. But, we make it clear that this order of remand will become operative only subject to the following conditions; a). The appellant pays a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the requisitioning authority either directly or through its standing counsel Smt.Amminikutty in this court within three weeks from today. b). The appellant pays a further amount of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee also within the same time limit and produce receipt. c). If under the revised award, the appellant becomes eligible for more compensation than what is presently awarded, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest under Section 28 of the Act during the period from 30/10/1997 till 16/8/2011. d). The appellant will forfeit one third of the total court fee LAA.Nos.925/2008 & 340/2011 5 payable to the Government. Once the learned Sub Judge notices receipts against the remittance of the amounts ordered above as costs on time, the learned Subordinate Judge will post the LAR for enquiry and revised award will be passed after completing enquiry at the earliest and at any rate within four months of the parties entering appearance before the Reference Court. The parties will enter before the Reference Court on 16/8/2011. L.A.A. No.340/2011 is allowed by way of remand. L.A.A. No.925/2008 will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk