Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 233 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Thomas

2016-02-26

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2016
ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. These Land Acquisition Appeals, namely, LAA No. 18 of 2015 and connected cases, arise out of a Section 4(1) notification dated 18/07/2009 published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the doubling work of Chengannur-Chingavanam Railway track. Since identical issues were raised and common arguments were advanced, we have disposed of these appeals by a common judgment dated 14/12/2015 (reported in 2016 (1) KHC 400 , 2016 (1) KLT 502 , 2016 (1) KLJ 456 ). In Paragraph 10 of the judgment, after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Siddappa Omanna Tumari, 1995 KHC 598, (1995) Supp 2 SCC 168, AIR 1995 SC 840 it was held that, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the Reference Court giving market value of the acquired land, the Reference Court is not expected to accept such reports blindly for determining the land value of the acquired land. However, due to an inadvertent mistake committed while incorporating the corrections made in the draft judgment, the word "blindly" was omitted to be incorporated in the last sentence in Paragraph 10 of the judgment. On the said fact being brought to our notice by the petitioner in RP No. 138 of 2016 (the 1st respondent in LAA No. 396 of 2015) the Registry was directed to post LAA. No. 18 of 2015 and connected cases before us, as 'to be spoken to'. 2. Accordingly, the LAA No. 18 of 2015 and connected cases are listed today before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Since the word "blindly" was omitted to be incorporated in the last sentence in Paragraph 10 of the judgment due to an inadvertent mistake committed while incorporating the corrections made in the draft judgment, we suo motu correct the last sentence in Paragraph 10 of the judgment as follows; "In that view of the matter, the Reference Court is not expected to accept such reports blindly for determining the land value of the acquired land." Accordingly, Paragraph 10 of our judgment dated 14/12/2015 in LAA No. 18 of 2015 and connected cases shall stand corrected as follows; "10. In some of these cases, the claimants relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. In some of these cases, the claimants relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Siddappa Omanna Tumari, 1995 KHC 598, (1995) Supp 2 SCC 168, AIR 1995 SC 840 the Apex Court held that, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the Court giving market value of the acquired land, the Court may, choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct. In that view of the matter, the Reference Court is not expected to accept such reports blindly for determining the land value of the acquired land." The Registry to issue corrected copies of the judgment to both sides, if applied for. The Registry shall also communicate a copy of this order to the Reference Court for information.