IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 500 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.11/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT / RESPONDENTS. -------------------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LA UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS. ------------------------------------ 1. D.SATHICHANDRAN,DARBHAVILA VEEDU, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA (ABSCONDING). 2. ABIMANYU,DARBHAVILA VEEDU, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA 3. KALYANI,DARBHAVILA VEEDU, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA. (DIED). 4. VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VARKALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. (R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT) ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R2 SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A. No.500 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the Government and the same is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.R. No.11/2004. The case pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of private bus stand by the Varkala Municipality. The requisitioning authority, the Varkala Municipality, has filed I.A. No.2818/2009 seeking its impleadment. We allow that I.A. and implead the Varkala Municipality as additional 4th respondent in this LAA. 2. Heard Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondent Municipality and Smt.Rose Michael, the learned counsel representing Sri.R.Manoj counsel for the claimants. 3. Sri.Ajithkumar submits that it was obligatory on the part of the reference court to have issued notice to the requisitioning authority when it was clear from the record that the acquisition was for the purpose of Varkala Municipality. The learned counsel LAA.No.500/2009 2 submitted, referring to the observation in the statement in paragraph 7 of the judgment, that the said statement that Varkala Municipality entered appearance through counsel is a wrong statement. It is clear from the certified copy of the judgment that there were only two respondents in the LAR case and they were respectively the Special Tahsildar, Addl.L.A.Unit and the State of Kerala. Therefore, the statement in the judgment that the second respondent was the Municipality can only be wrong. It is now trite by the judgments of this court and by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 683) that the requisitioning authority is also to be afforded an opportunity to participate in the enquiry of reference under Section 18, since the compensation amount is to be provided of by them. On that sole reason the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4. We set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the LAR to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal. The Varkala Municipality, which has been impleaded as additional 4th respondent in the LAA, is impleaded as additional 3rd respondent in the LAR. The reference court will afford opportunity to all the LAA.No.500/2009 3 parties to adduce further evidence if they want to. That court will take fresh decision on the basis of the totality of the evidence which comes on record. Revised judgment, as directed above, shall be passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at the earliest and at any rate within four months of the parties entering appearance before the reference court pursuant to the order of remand. All the parties enter appearance before the reference court on 10/9/2009. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk