IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 LA.App..No. 499 of 2011(D) ------------------------------- LAR.146/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN LAR ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT IN LAR ---------------------------------------- KANAKAMMA, D/O.JANAKI AMMA, GOPA NIVAS, T.C.12/1901, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R-1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.499 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Government is in appeal. They challenge the award passed by the Reference Court under which the Reference Court has re-fixed the value of land in Kadakampally village acquired for the purpose of widening of Pothujanam from ` 1,64,018/- per Are to ` 6 lakhs per Are. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader Sri.Shyamkumar, the learned Subordinate Judge has placed reliance on Ext.A1 and Ext.A1 pertains to a small bit of land. No evidence was available before the learned Subordinate Judge to prove the comparability between the property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition. The learned Government Pleader requested that the impugned award be set aside and the matter be remanded to the lower court for passage of a fresh award. The above request is L. A. A. No.499 of 2011 -2- very stiffly opposed by Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned counsel for the claimant. According Sri.Basant even the acquired property was a small bit and to Ext.A1 there was absolutely no counter evidence adduced from the side of the Government. It is true that the Government did not adduce any counter evidence before the Reference Court. At the same time, the comparability of the property covered by Ext.A1 and the property under acquisition was a matter to be proved by the claimant who occupied the position of plaintiff before the Reference Court. We are inclined to set aside the award and remand the L.A.R case to the Reference Court. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- 2. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. LAR.146/06 is remanded to the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is permitted to take out a commission for proving the comparability between the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1. If further evidence is adduced by the claimant pursuant to this order of remand, the Government will be permitted to L. A. A. No.499 of 2011 -3- adduce counter evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge will pass the revised award on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which came to be adduced by the parties. Parties will enter appearance on 08/11/11. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-