IBRAHIMKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants challenge the judgment of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam in L.A.R.No.222/1998. The reference filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation has been answered by the Court by confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not in dispute that the appellants did not prosecute the matter in the sense that when the case was taken up, according to the appellants the counsel for the appellants could not be present. The result was that Court had before it only Ext.A1 as evidence in support of the appellants' case. Ext.A1 is the copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.140/94. The reference Court found that the properties in Ext.A1 and the acquired property are lying in two different survey numbers in the same village. It is also found that the appellants could not substantiate that the acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1 is similarly situated or there was any nexus between these two properties. The reference Court placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in (State of Kerala vs. Karthiyani (1999 (2) KLT 679) to the effect that merely because of certified copy is produced before the Court it does not mean that the contents of the document are proved without examining witnesses.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that it is only on account of the fact that the counsel was incapacitated due to immobilisation with a fracture in an accident that he could not be present in Court to adduce evidence. The case of the appellants is that the land value of Rs.10,000/- claimed by the appellants is only just and also that Ext.A1 judgment relates to property adjacent to and identical to the property acquired from the appellants.

(3.) In the circumstances of the case, we deem it necessary that an opportunity should be granted to the appellants to substantiate their contentions. We take note of the interim orders passed by this Court while condoning the delay in re-presenting as also in filing the appeal. In such circumstances, we pass the following order: