1 2025:KER:25708 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED IN LAR NO.129 OF 2021 OF LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS /CLAIMANTS 2 & 3 IN LAR 129/2021 : 1 PRATHEESH S/O RAJAGOPAL, PAVOOR VEETTIL, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PIN - 682024 2 RENUKA W/O RAJAGOPAL , PAVOOR VEETTIL, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PIN - 682024 BY ADVS. ROSE MICHAEL C.P.WILSON MICHAEL PAUL CHITTINAPPILLY RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS NO.1,2&3 AND CLAIMANT NO.1 IN LAR 129/2021 : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-, PIN - 682030 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD REVENUE TOWER, ERNAKULAM, 4TH FLOOR, JLN STADIUM METRO STATION, KALOOR, KOCHI-, PIN - 682017 2 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708 3 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LA NO.1, KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682030 4 RESIDENTS OF PENTA QUEEN APARTMENTS PENTA QUEEN APARTMENTS, CIVIL LANE ROAD PADIVATTOM, PIN - 682021 BY ADVS. MANU VYASAN PETER - R2 P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994) - R2 P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009) - R2 SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998)- R2 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708 SYAM KUMAR V.M., J. --------------------------------- LA. App. No.99 of 2023 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the award dated 07.07.2023 in LAR No.129 of 2021 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Ernakulam. Appellants were claimants 2 and 3 in the LAR. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were respondents 1 to 3 in the LAR. The 4th respondent herein was the 1st claimant in the LAR. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the LAR. 2. Claimants 2 and 3 are aggrieved by the rejection of their claim to release the award amounts lying in deposit before the Authority. They had claimed that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajagopal, on whom the acquired property had vested by virtue of Ext.A1 partition deed. The said property, having an extent of 0.09 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No. 120/2- B19 of Edappally South Village, had been acquired for the purpose of widening Palarivattom-Kakkanad PWD Road in 4 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708 connection with Kochi Metro Rail Project. Award No. 53/2021 dated 05.07.2021 in LAC No. 45/2020 was rendered for an amount of Rs.8,88,870/- fixing land value at the rate of Rs.38,08,273/- per Are. The said amount was deposited before the Authority as per Section 77 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 since the claimants failed to produce original title deeds. On the strength of Ext. P1 partition deed as well as tax receipt produced as Ext. A2, claimants 2 and 3 claimed possession over the said property and professed entitlement to the amounts lying in deposit before the Authority. The Authority raised two points for consideration and permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Exts.A1 and A2 were produced by the claimants and respondents produced Exts. R1, R2 and R3. AW1 was examined as a witness on the part of the claimants. After appreciating the evidence, the Authority came to the conclusion that claimants 2 and 3 failed to establish their right to receive the compensation deposited as there was nothing to prove that they were in possession of the property or that they had title over the same. It was held that Exts.A1 and A2 do not have prima facie evidence of their continuing possession. It was also pointed out that there appeared to be differences in the 5 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708 survey numbers as shown in Ext.A1 and the survey number of the property as covered in Exts. R1 and R2. Holding thus, the claim put forth by claimants 2 and 3 was rejected vide the order impugned in this appeal. 3. Heard Smt.Rose Michael, Advocate for the appellants/claimants 2 & 3, Smt.Rekha C. Nair, Sr. Government Pleader for R1 and R3 and Sri.P.B.Krishnan instructed by Sri.Manu Vyasan Peter, Advocate for R2. 4. Admittedly, no evidence, other than Exts.A1 and A2, had been produced to substantiate the claims put forth by claimants 2 and 3. The relevant survey number noted in Ext.A1 is Survey No.120/19A of Edappaly South Village. The acquired property, however, is stated to be comprised in a different survey number viz. Survey No. 120/2-B19 of the same village. The Authority has stated that when the 3rd claimant was examined as AW1, she was questioned regarding this variance in number, but no plausible explanation was provided by her. The learned counsel appearing for claimants 2 and 3 submitted that variation is due to a subsequent resurvey that had been conducted during which further divisions were made. It is further submitted that though documents to explain out the difference in survey number were available with claimants 2 and 3, they were not able to 6 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708 produce the same before the Authority as enough time had not been afforded. It is submitted that if an opportunity to produce the said documents is provided, they would be able to substantiate their contentions. 5. The Authority, has concluded that the respondents had not provided any explanation as to how the names of the 2nd and 3rd claimants happened to be mentioned in the award. It is the specific contention of claimants 2 and 3 before me that they have sufficient material to discharge the burden of proving their possessory title over the property and to explain the variance noted in the survey number. Except for Exts.A1 and A2, no other documents could be produced before the Authority by the claimants 2 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, substantial justice demands that claimants 2 and 3 be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate their contentions. 6. Accordingly, the award dated 07.07.2023 in LAR No. 129 of 2021 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Ernakulam is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Authority for fresh consideration and disposal after affording all parties an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. 7 LA.APP. NO. 99 OF 2023 2025:KER:25708 L.A.A is disposed of directing the claimants 2 and 3 to appear before the Authority on 10.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. The Authority shall consider the LAR afresh after affording both sides opportunity to tender additional evidence, if any. Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V. M. JUDGE NJ