IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 875 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.4/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT NO.2. ------------------------------------------ 1. HEERALAL, TC 31/873,CHACKAI, PETHAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.875 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Pettah Village of Palayam Airport Road, Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to notification dt.23.11.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.1,46,819/- per Are. Reference court relying on Ext.A3 judgment re-fixed the land value at Rs.15,00,000/- per Are. Eventhough respondents were served with notice, they have not entered appearance before this court. Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, Senior Government Pleader would submit that Ext.A3 was not a relevant document at all. It was in respect of acquisition of another property not identical or similar. So also she has drawn our attention to the judgment of this court in other cases. The above submissions of the learned Government Pleader are not resisted by the claimants. We feel that Ext.A3 was not a relevant document. But we notice that to whatever evidence was adduced by the claimants the Government did not adduce any counter oral evidence. It is L.A.A. 875/09 2 clear that to a certain extent the learned Subordinate Judge relied on oral evidence of PW1 also. Under the above circumstances we feel that interest of justice demands that the matter is to send back to the reference court giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. Accordingly the judgment and decree under this appeal are set aside. LAR No.4/2006 is remanded to the IInd Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That court is directed to take fresh decision relying on the evidence already on record on Ext.A3 and on the further evidence to be adduced at any rate, within 4 (four) months of court receiving copy of the judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb