IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1088 of 2005()
1. THE STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THAZHATH VEETTIL INDIRA DEVI,
... Respondent
2. THE PROJECT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH, ADDL.A.G.
For Respondent :SRI.SANTHARAM.P
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.1088 OF 2005
------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of
land in Nanminda Village in Kozhikode Taluk for the purpose of
laying pipeline and for construction of water tanks. The nature of
the land was wet land and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded
land value at the rate of Rs.1493/- per cent in this acquisition
which was pursuant to notification dated 22/6/1998. Exts.A1
and A2 were the documents produced by the claimant in support
of her claim for enhancement of land value. Ext.A2, which was
a post notification document, was executed three years
subsequent to the date of Section 4 (1) notification. But, what
the learned Sub Judge did was to make a deduction of 25% of
Ext.A2 for the passage of time and to do guess work. We are
unable to approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in having
relied on post notification document alone for the purpose of
refixing the market value of the land. Of course, as pointed out
by the learned counsel for the respondent Sri.V.Santharam, the
LAA.No.1088/2005 2
advocate commissioner had recommended for enhancement at
the present rate. But it is trite that when advocate
commissioners recommend for higher value, unless their
recommendations are supported by the value reflected by the
registered sale document and that registered document also
placed on record, recommendations are not to be accepted.
Sri.Santharam submitted that if opportunity is given, the
respondent will be able to produce documents revealing higher
land value at the relevant time. Considering the above
submission of the learned counsel for the claimant we are
inclined to grant opportunity.
2. The result is, accordingly, as follows;
i). The judgment and decree under
appeal are set aside and the L.A.R.
No.5/2001 is remanded back to the Sub
Court, Kozhikode. That court is directed to
permit both sides to adduce whatever further
evidence they want to in support of their
claim and to pass revised judgment on the
basis of the entirety of the evidence which
LAA.No.1088/2005 3
comes on record.
ii). The revised judgment as directed
above shall be passed by the learned Sub
Judge at the earliest and at any rate within
five months of the parties entering
appearance pursuant to this order.
Iii). The parties will enter appearance
before the court below on 11/11/2009.
It is made clear that in case the appellant become eligible
for the enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes
eligible by virtue of the revised judgment to be passed by the
Reference Court, the appellant will not be entitled for interest
otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the
period from 22/7/2004 till the date of revised judgment to be
passed by the Reference court.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk