IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 247 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.166/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------ DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAVIYAPPILLY MANA, CHERANELLOOR DESOM, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI – 34 . BY ADV. SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.S.NARAYANA RAJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) I.C.T.T. VALLARAPADOM, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.247 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is the award of the Reference Court re-fixing value of lands in Cheranelloor village acquired for the purpose of four line connectivity from N.H.47 to Vallarpadom. The acquisition was pursuant to section 4(1) notification published on 26/10/05. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-11 and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,00,375/- per Are. The Reference Court on the basis of evidence found that the property was eligible to be included in L. A. A. No.247 of 2010 -2- category-10, a superior category for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value at the rate of Rs.1,11,528/- per Are. The appellant/ claimant placed strong reliance on Ext.A7. The evidence adduced by the appellant consisted of Exts.A1 to A11, AWs.1 to 3 and R1 to R4. Significantly, there was no counter oral evidence on the side of the Government or the Requisitioning Authority. Reports and sketches submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of local inspection were marked in evidence as Exts.C1 to C2(a). The court below did not become inclined to place specific reliance on any of the documents produced by the appellant. The court below, however, would make a guess of the market value and re-fix the same at Rs.1,72,685/- L. A. A. No.247 of 2010 -3- per Are which incidentally was 50% of the market value reflected in Ext.A2 one of the documents produced by them. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised assailing the impugned judgment and Sri.P.S.Narayana Raja, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed submissions before us based on all those grounds. The submissions of Sri.Raja were forcefully resisted by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader. Sri.Raja would give more thrust to his argument that in L.A.A.163/08 pertaining to acquisition of land, the very same learned Judge has awarded the rates granted to certain other claimants who opted for DLPC package. According to Sri.Raja, the appellants are also entitled for the L. A. A. No.247 of 2010 -4- same rates. Smt. Latha would immediately retort that judgment in L.A.A.163/08 has not become final and the same is being appealed against. Sri.Raja would then submit that the appellants have several relevant documents to be produced before the court below and fervently requested that an opportunity be afforded for producing all those documents. We feel that in the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for affording such an opportunity to the appellant, however, only by imposing conditions. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree and remand LAR.166/07 to the third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam subject to the following conditions:- 1) If under the revised judgment to be L. A. A. No.247 of 2010 -5- passed by the Reference Court pursuant to this judgment if the appellant becomes entitled for compensation at rates more than the rates granted under the impugned judgment, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest other wise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period from 23/03/09 till date of such revised judgment. 2) The court below will place reliance on post notification documents (sale documents) only when it becomes absolutely necessary and relevant pre-notification documents are not available. 3) The appellant will produce all relevant documents proposed to be relied on by him before the court below on or before 31/05/10. L. A. A. No.247 of 2010 -6- 3. Since the remand is necessitated to a certain extent due the fault of the appellant himself, a sum of Rs.25,000/- from out of the initial 1/3rd court fee remitted by him on the appeal memo will not be refunded to the appellant. Only the balance will be refunded to the appellant. The parties will appear before the court below on 05/04/10. The court below will complete further enquiry and pass revised judgment at the earliest, and at any rate, before 31/07/10. Refund the court fee remitted less Rs.25,000/-. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-