SECRETARY Vs. KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Requisitioning Authority, Pazhayakunnumel Grama Panchayath is in appeal. For the establishment of a private bus stand for the Panchayat properties in Pazhayakunnumel village were acquired. THE properties acquired were categorized into three categories 'A', 'B' and 'C'. This appeal involves properties included in category 'B' only. Included in category-A were properties enjoying direct frontage of the main road, Attingal - Kilimanoor road. Included in category-'B' were properties situated at a distance about 24 metres with cultivation of coconut, aricunut, plantain etc. Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.23,472/- per Are for the properties in category-'A'. For properties in category-'B', he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.18,729/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence on the side of the claimants consisted of Ext.A1 to A7 and the oral evidence of the claimant as AW1. Though the Requisitioning Authority was present before the Reference Court, no counter evidence at all was adduced by that authority. THE ground which is prominently raised in this appeal by the Panchayat is that it was due to a communication gap between the counsel and the Panchayat that the Panchayat could not adduce evidence. Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel for the appellant would fervently appeal for an order of remand for enabling the Panchayat to adduce evidence. Sri.M.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the claimant would oppose the request. According to Sri.Dinesh, it is the claimant who should be aggrieved by the award inasmuch as the court below has awarded only 50% of what was awarded for the properties in category-'A' for the properties in category-B. At least 80% of the value of properties in category-'A' should be awarded as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to Sri.Dinesh, even if this court is inclined to grant opportunity to the Panchayat the same shall be on very stringent conditions.

(2.) WE have considered the rival submissions. WE are inclined to accept the submissions of Sri.Siju Kamalasanan that the Panchayat's failure to adduce evidence was due to a communication gap between the Panchayat and its counsel. At the same time, we notice some merit in the submission of Dinesh that it is not the correct ratio which has been maintained by the court below while fixing the values of properties in category 'A' and 'B'. WE are of the view that an order of remand can be passed and opportunity can be given to both sides for substantiating their rival contentions subject to conditions.