IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 553 of 2011(C) -------------------------- LAR.18/2009 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- R. KUNJUKRISHNA PANICKER, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 81 YEARS, NO.112, ROSINGS,M.P.APPAN NAGAR, VAZHUTHCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14,REP. BY HIS SON P.A HOLDER K. SREEKUMAR,S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PANICKER, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.112, M.P. APPAN NAGAR, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... L.A.A.N.553 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Claimant is the appellant. He is aggrieved by what is described as gross inadequacy of the compensation predetermined by the reference court. The properties were in Kulathoor village of Neyyattinkara Taluk. The acquisition was for the purpose of rehabilitating Tsunami victims. The L.A. Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.38,435/- per cent. The reference court under the impugned award has refixed the same relying on Ext.A1 judgment at Rs.1,52,660/- per Are. Before the reference court, the appellant produced as many as nine documents. Out of these documents, document Nos. 1 to 8 were sale documents in respect of the properties in the locality . The 9th document was a survey plan. The 9th document was produced for resolving a dispute as to the extent of the property under acquisition whether it is 3 acres and 69 cents or 3 acres and 63 cents. The appellant/claimant for reasons best known to him did not adduce oral evidence. He only filed an L.A.A.N.553 OF 2011 : 2 : affidavit in lieu of the chief examination. But, in that affidavit, he had marked all the documents produced by him as Exts.A1 to A9. On the side of the appellant, the witness examined as AW1 was a surveyor. The evidence adduced by AW1 was in the context of the extent dispute only. He did not say anything as to the correct market value of the property at the relevant time. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment has observed as follows: “though several documents were produced initially, later only Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 were marked”. The above observation is not correct. In fact documents Exts. A1 to A9 were marked by the claimant in the affidavit in lieu of the chief examination. If what the learned Subordinate Judge means is that no formal evidence was let in for the purpose of introducing the document, then also we do not find any formal evidence adduced by the appellant for introducing Ext.A1 judgment and Ext.A2 in evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge, in spite of the fact that no oral evidence was adduced by the appellant to prove comparability of the property covered by Ext.A1 and L.A.A.N.553 OF 2011 : 3 : properties under acquisition, has ultimately awarded to the appellant the rate which was awarded to the parties in Ext.A1. In this appeal various grounds are raised urging that the rate fixed by the reference court is inadequate. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. N.N.Sugunapalan – learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.R. Shyam Kumar - learned Senior Government Pleader. Even though the learned senior counsel addressed submissions based on all the grounds, the request which he ultimately made was that the LAR case be remanded so that the appellant gets an opportunity to rely on various sale documents which were produced before the reference court against the list dated 8.3.2011. 3. Sri. Syam Kumar learned senior Government Pleader would oppose the above request. According to him, no explanation convincing or otherwise is offered by the appellant for non adducing any evidence regarding the comparability of the property in acquisition and the property covered by documents which were produced. Even formal evidence was not adduced by the appellant before the court L.A.A.N.553 OF 2011 : 4 : below in support of the claim for enhanced value, Ext.A1 was a document produced by the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge even in the absence of evidence has awarded the rate reflected in Ext.A1. 4. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions addressed at the bar. A perusal of the document will show that document No.1010 dated 14.5.2008 of Kulathur Sub Registry, document No.2011 dated 14.11.2005 of Kulathur Sub Registry and document No.224 dated 5.2.2003 of Kulathur Sub Registry are the three documents which reflects higher value than what is awarded by the reference court. We are of the view that the request of the learned senior counsel that the appellant be afforded an opportunity for putting in evidence based on those documents in support of the claim for enhanced land value can be granted imposing proper conditions which will protect the interest of the Government in the matter. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows: 5. The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. L.A.A.N.553 OF 2011 : 5 : LAR.No.18/2009 is remanded to the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to permit the appellant to formally prove document Nos.1010, 2011 and 224 already referred to and any other documents in support of his claim for enhancement of the land value. If the appellant adduces further evidence, the Government should be permitted to adduce counter evidence. A revised award shall be passed by the learned Subordinate Judge refixing the land value. At any rate, the learned Subordinate Judge shall keep in mind that the claim of the appellant was limited before this Court to Rs. One lakh per cent and shall not award more than Rs.One lakh per cent under the revised award. In view of the laches which we have noticed on the part of the appellant in the matter of prosecuting his claim before the reference court, we order that the appellant will forfeit Rs.two lakhs from out the total court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum to the Government and that the balance amount alone will be refunded to the appellant. So also there will be a further condition that in case the appellant becomes eligible for more enhanced value than L.A.A.N.553 OF 2011 : 6 : what is awarded presently under the revised award, such enhancement will not carry interest under Section 28 of the L.A.Act during the period from 8.6.2011 till the date of the revised award. Parties will enter appearance before the Sub Court on 2nd January, 2012. Transmit all the records forthwith to the reference court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl