IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 2345 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.44/2006 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT. --------------------------------- UNTAN KUMARAN , VENATTUSSERIL HOUSE, KUMMANOOR KARA, KIDANGOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 2345 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant, whose properties in Kidangoor village were acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/6/2004 is before this court complaining that the compensation redetermined by the Reference Court is inadequate. The claimant's property was included in category 2 i.e. properties which do not abut the main road and was awarded value at the rate of Rs.5027/- per Are . Before the Reference Court, it was claimed that the property is eligible to be treated as property enjoying the direct frontage of the main road as other portions of the entire holding belonging to the claimant were enjoying frontage of the above road. Ext.A4 , which is the court award in an earlier reference pertaining to the acquisition WPC.No.2345/2008 2 earlier for the same purpose, was pressed into service. The advocate in report Ext.C1 and more so in Ext.C1 sketch reported that the unacquired portions of the appellant's property were enjoying road frontage(that portion of the road which was constructed by utilising the land acquired earlier from the appellant). The learned Subordinate Judge, however would take the view that as the acquired property was not abutting the road directly and was situated only on the rear side of the appellant's property, the acquired property cannot be treated on a par with the properties enjoying the road frontage. 2. We feel that the learned Subordinate Judge has not noticed the principles laid down by this court in Sreedharan And Others v. State of Kerala (1967 KLT 1067) and Joseph Cyriac v. State of Kerala (2004 (3) KLT page 48). We are of the view that the issue should be re- appreciated and decided by the learned Subordinate Judge keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above two decisions, which is to the effect that when the property under acquisition was enjoying road frontage through other properties of the claimant, the claimant's property is to be treated as property enjoying road frontage. WPC.No.2345/2008 3 3. The appellant has another claim that he has not been awarded compensation for the full extent which was acquired by him. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the findings entered by the learned Subordinate Judge against the appellant is based on evidence. We are not inclined to interfere with the decision on the above claim any longer. But, as already indicated, the question of correct compensation payable to the appellant and the probative value of Ext.A4 should be reconsidered. 4. The result of the above discussion is that the judgment and decree under appeal to the extent it relates to the fixation of market value of the land under acquisition is set aside and remanded to the Reference Court. That Court is directed to take a fresh decision regarding the correct market value to be awarded for the lands under acquisition. If the parties are desirous of letting in further evidence, permission should be granted for that purpose. The parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on 9/8/2011. The court below will complete the enquiry and pass revised award within three months thereafter. Refund WPC.No.2345/2008 4 the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk