IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 246 of 2010()
1. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 61 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA BY THE SPECIAL
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.246 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.246 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.246 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.246 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.11/08 to
the third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam subject
to the following conditions:-
1) If under the revised judgment to be
L. A. A. No.246 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.246 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 court fee remitted less Rs.25,000/-.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-