IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1000 of 2005(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GIREESAN PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :06/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The Government is in appeal. The case pertains
to acquisition for the Pumpa Irrigation Project. The
land was in Karthikappally village. The relevant
Section 4(1) notification was published on
01/10/1980. There is some confusion regarding the
land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
But the court below relying on Exts.A1 and A2 re-fixed
the land value at Rs.16,197/- per Are corresponding to
Rs.6557.48/- per cent. It is challenging the above
enhancement that this appeal is preferred.
2. Heard Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior
L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 -2-
Government Pleader and those of Sri.A.R.Dileep, the
learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Basant Balaji
submitted that the court below was not justified in
placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 since Ext.A1 was
ten years subsequent to the Section 4(1) notification
while Ext.A2 was eight years subsequent to that
notification. Sri.Dileep while supporting the impugned
judgment submitted that certain mistakes had crept
into the impugned judgment and wanted us to correct
those mistakes.
3. On going through the impugned judgment, we
are of the view that the court below was not justified
in placing reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 when the basis
document, a pre-notification document was available.
Post notification document can be relied on only when
L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 -3-
it becomes indispensable. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned judgment and decree and remand the L.A.R
back to the Reference Court. This is an open remand
and both sides will have the permission to adduce
whatever further evidence they want to. The court
below will pass the revised judgment on the basis of
the entirety of evidence which comes on record.
However, since the claimant is responsible for this
order of remand, we direct that in the event of
claimant becoming eligible for further enhancement
over and above what is granted under the impugned
judgment, such further enhancement will not carry
interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the
Land Acquisition Act during the period from 13/08/03
till the date of the revised judgment. The parties will
L. A. A. No.1000 of 2005 -4-
appear before the Reference Court on 30th October,
2009.
4. This appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-