IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 431 of 2004()
1. OUSEPH S/O. VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.V.THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER (NO MEMO)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :29/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.431 OF 2004
------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
This is an appeal filed by the claimant and the case pertains
to acquisition of land in Varappetty village for the purpose of
Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The relevant Section 4(1)
notification was published on 15/2/1997. As against the claim
for Rs.25,000/-, the land acquisition officer awarded land value
at the rate of Rs.5,246/- per cent only. The evidence before the
reference court consisted of Ext.A1 sale deed and Ext.A2
judgment, apart from the oral testimony of PW-1. Ext.A1 sale
deed was not properly proved by examining any of the parties
to the same. The reference court became inclined to refix the
land value at Rs.7027/- per cent only.
2. In this appeal the appellant claims that land value be
refixed on the basis of Ext.A1. He also claims that at least 50%
value be granted in respect of injurious affection to the
remainder portion of the acquired property belonging to him.
Even though Sri. A.V.Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant
LA.A..No.431/2004 2
has addressed us persuasively, we are unable to decide the issue
finally the absence of proper evidence. We are some what
impressed by the submission of the learned counsel that some
compensation should have been awarded towards injurious
affection to the remainder portion of the acquired property.
But we find that the appellant did not take out a commission for
proving before the reference court as to the extent to which the
remainder portion has been affected by the acquisition. It is
submitted Sri.A.V.Thomas that if opportunity is given, the
appellant will be able to prove Ext.A1 document by examining
one of the parties to the same or somebody else who is
acquainted to the transaction recorded in Ext.A1. We are of the
view that opportunity can be given to the appellant for
substantiating his claim for enhancement by adducing better
evidence.
3. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree
under appeal and remand the LAR case back to the reference
court. The reference court will give opportunity to the appellant
to prove Ext.A1 document and to adduce further evidence. If
application for issuance of commission is filed by the appellant in
LA.A..No.431/2004 3
the context of his claim for enhancement of land value and claim
for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder portion
of the acquired property or proving the comparability of Ext.A1
property and the acquired property, such application will be
allowed by the reference court. If the Government so desires,
the Government also should be given opportunity to adduce
counter evidence.
4. The parties shall appear before the reference court on
16/8/2009. The appeal will stand allowed by way of remand.
Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to
the counsel for the appellant.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk