State of Kerala vs Sunderasan and The Executive Engineer, K.S.T.P.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Government is in appeal. The property was in Ayirooppara village. The purpose of acquisition was for upgradation of Thykkod Kottarakkara State Highway. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 6/1/2003. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 11,717/- per Are. The Reference Court relying mainly on Ext.A1 would refix the land value at Rs. 6,00,000/- per Are.

The learned Government Pleader Smt. T.T. Josephina submitted that the reliance placed by the court below on Ext. A1 was not at all justified. According to her, Ext. A1 was not properly proved at all and the person who purported to prove Ext. A2 was not at all competent.

Sri. G.S. Reghunath, learned Counsel for the claimant would justify the impugned award. According to him, the Appellant had a very valid claim for compensation for injurious affection as the Appellant''s unacquired property had been rendered worthless on account of acquisition. The learned Counsel also submitted that the categorisation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was under challenge. Mr. Reghunath submitted further that the Appellant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to prove the comparability of the acquired property and Ext. A1 property.

Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the impugned judgment and decree warrants interference. At the same time, we are not inclined to decide the issue finally. We feel that opportunity can be given to the claimant also for substantiating all his grievance.

The result is that the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. L.A.R. No. 171/2006 is remanded to the court below. The court below is directed to permit both the parties to adduce whatever further evidence they want to. If application for issuance of commission is made within one month of the parties entering appearance, the same will be allowed. Parties are free to produce fresh documents also and prove those documents in accordance with law.

As we find that the claimant is responsible for not adducing proper evidence for substantiating his claim for injurious affection and that the claim that Ext. A1 property was comparable to the property under acquisition, we are inclined to impose terms as conditions for operating this judgment. Taking into account the interest of the claimant also, we are inclined to direct deposit of 50% of the decree debt as another condition.

The result of the above discussion is as follows;

i). The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside.

ii). The L.A.A. No. 171/2006 is remanded to the IInd Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That Court is directed to take fresh decision. Both sides be permitted to substantiate the contention raised by them by adducing further evidence. If commission is filed within one month of the parties entering appearance, the same will be allowed.

iii). The parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court on the day the court reopens after mid summer holidays.

iv). The learned Sub Judge will complete the enquiry and pass revised judgment within four months thereafter.

v). It is further ordered this judgment will become operative only subject to the following conditions;

i). The Government will deposit 50% of the decree debt due under the impugned judgment within two months of the court reopening after Mid Summer holidays and once such deposit is made, the claimant will be permitted to draw the same subject to the final outcome of the LAR case.

ii). In case the Appellant becomes eligible for enhanced compensation by virtue of the revised judgment, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible u/s 28 of the Act during the period from 25/2/2009 till 25/3/2011.