IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 LA.App..No. 221 of 2011() ------------------------- LAR.141/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: -------------- SARASAMMA SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, VILAYIL VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERI, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPARESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 691 501. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 221 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Thrikkadavoor village was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/5/199.5 The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Kollam Bye pass. The land was dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.35,405/- per Are. 2. Before the Reference Court, Ext.A1 and A2 two pre notification documents reflecting value of Rs.75,000/- per are were relied on. These documents were proved by examining PW1 claimant herself. The claimant in cross examination by the Government Pleader was unable to give the details of the scheduled portions of these documents. The learned Sub Judge for the above reason did not place any reliance on these two documents. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was to LAA.No.221/2011 2 do guess work and to refix the market value granting enhancement of 30% above what was awarded by the LAO. 3. Sri.C.A.Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellant would argue before us that the court below was not justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2 completely. Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader however would support the impugned judgment. According to her, as Exts.A1 and A2 were not properly proved by examining vendor or vendee, the court below was not justified in not placing reliance on them. True, Exts.A1 and A2 were not proved by examining the parties. but we notice another aspect of the matter. To whatever evidence that was adduced by the claimant, there is not even formal counter evidence on the side of the Government. We are of the view that there was justification for placing reliance at least to a certain extent on Exts.A1 and A2. Keeping in mind Exts.A1 and A2 also, we are inclined to refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.50,000/- per Are. 4. We allow this appeal by refixing the market value of the land at Rs.50,000/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and LAA.No.221/2011 3 Section 28 of the Act on the total refixed compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, while providing for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in our orders in C.M.Appln. No.479/2011 and C.M.Appln. No.399/2011. The Section will issue decree copy only after ensuring that the conditions imposed by us under the above two orders have been complied with and that full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is paid. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk LAA.No.221/2011 4 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ C.M.Appln. No.479 of 2011 in LAA.No.221/2011 5 L.A.A.No. 221 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This application seeks condonation of the delay of 825 days caused in the matter of filing the appeal. We are not fully convinced by the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay. There is stiff opposition from the side of the Government also for condoning the delay. However, on the consideration that as far as possible causes should be allowed to be adjudicated on merits rather than decided on technicalities, we are inclined to condone the delay imposing terms. Hence, it is ordered that the delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions; i). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within ten days from today. ii). In case the appeal is allowed and the appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period of 825 days condoned by this order. LAA.No.221/2011 6 Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal. The Registry will send up the appeal for admission once receipt against payment of the above amount is noticed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk