IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3590 of 2010(W) ------------------------- LAR.303/2007 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA KUMARI, KUTTIYIL VEEDU FROM MEENATHETHIL, PONAKAM, THEKKEKKARA, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.GEORGE RAJU SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAYS REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3590 OF 2010 (W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner is the claimant in LAR.No.303/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. Her property having an extent of 1.65 ares in Sy. No.6/10-1 in block No.96 of Thekkekara Village in Mavelikara Taluk was acquired for the purposes of the 2nd respondent. Compensation was awarded. She sought enhancement. Accordingly, reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. When the case was posted for evidence the claimant was absent and therefore the Sub Court by Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 22.11.2008 rejected the reference on the ground that the claimant did not produce any document in support of the claim for enhancement. 3. Review of Ext.P1 was sought for by filing I.A.No.2320/2008. That was also rejected by Ext.P3. Ext.P3 says that the absence of the claimant was on account of the deliberate lapse on her part and therefore no ground for review was made out. It is challenging Exts.P1 and P3, that this writ petition is filed. WPC.No. 3590/2010 :2 : 4. A reading of Exts.P1 and P3 shows that there was lapses on the part of the claimant in appearing before the Court and adducing evidence. However, fact remains that property was acquired and according to the petitioner, the compensation awarded was inadequate. In such circumstances ends of justice requires that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to appear before the sub court and adduce evidence and contest the case on merits. In order to enable the petitioner to do so, I feel Exts.P1 and P3 are to be set aside. Accordingly, setting aside Exts.P1 and P3, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Mavelikara to take up LAR.NO.303/2007 and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 3590/2010 :3 :