IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 121 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- [LAR.NO.20/2010 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMSON.P.JOSEPH, PLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI,EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPD.BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(LA), KOCHI REFINERIES , VYTTILA, AT NORTH FORT GATE, THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, KALAMASSERY- 682 025. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH. THIS O.P (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CIVIL).NO.121/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AWARD NOTE IN L.A.R. NO.20/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DTD. 04/09/2010 FILED IN L.A.R. NO.20/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION, I.A. NO. 6370/2010 IN L.A.R. NO.20/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 09/11/2010 FILED IN L.A.R. NO.20/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2/2011 DTD. 01/11/2010 FILED IN L.A.R. NO. 20/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 1/2011 DTD. 01/11/2010 FILED IN L.A.R. NO.20/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/01/2011 OF I.A. NO. 1/2011 IN L.A.R. NO. 20/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 05/01/2011 OF I.A. NO. 2011 IN L.A.R. NO. 20/2010 OF THE III ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- O.P.(Civil) No.121 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 Judgment The claimant in LAR No.20 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner. He sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming enhanced compensation for the property acquired from his possession. When the evidence was almost completed, the petitioner filed an application for issuance of Commission for the purpose of inspecting the property covered by document No.98 of 2007 dated 15.1.2007 of the S.R.O.Edappally. The request was opposed by the requisitioning authority contending that the Commissioner had already inspected the property and this petition is highly belated. There was also another request made by the claimant to recall A.W.1. Both those applications were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. 2. The petitioner contends that unless the Commissioner is directed to inspect the property with reference to the document as aforesaid and a report is obtained regarding the comparability of the acquired property and the property covered by document O.P.(C) No.121/011 2 No.98 of 2007, it may not be possible for the claimant to prove his claim for enhanced compensation. True, the report already filed also may be relevant and helpful to the court to find which exactly was the property comparable in nature; namely, similar in nature and similarly situated. However, the inspection by the Commissioner of the property covered by the aforesaid document will not in any way prejudice the right or interest of the requisitioning authority. To that extent the report would be useful can be decided only at the time of trial. By recalling A.W.1, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. 3. Accordingly, the O.P is allowed. The learned Sub Judge will issue commission for the purpose as aforesaid. If the requisitioning authority so feels, they can file work memo to the Commissioner for noting the particulars as are necessary to sustain their claim. The court below will also permit A.W.1 to be recalled and examined after the commission report is obtained. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd O.P.(C) No.121/011 3