Ramachandran Nair, J.
When these appeals are came up for admission today, on consent of the parties, all the appeals were taken up for disposal.
2. L.A.A.No.777 of 2014 is from the judgment in L.A.R.No.169 of 2003 and L.A.A.No.748 of 2014 is from the judgment in L.A.R.No.168 of 2003. Both were tried together and a common judgment was passed. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Ramesan Nambisan that disregarding the plea raised by the claimants to pass orders on I.As to set aside the commission report, the court below took up the matter for evidence and by recording that the claimants did not turn up for adducing evidence, closed the reference applications. We find from the judgment that the observation made by the reference court is to the effect that the claimants in both references have not turned up so far and they have not adduced any evidence by examining witnesses and no documents have also been marked on their side.
3. L.A.A.No.786 of 2014 is from the judgment in L.A.R.No.170 of 2003 and L.A.A.No.802 of 2014 is from the judgment in L.A.R.No.185 of 2003. Both were tried together and common judgment was rendered, wherein also on the ground that the claimants have not adduced any evidence, the reference court rejected the references and found that they are not entitled for any enhanced compensation. The plea raised in these appeals is also the same that the claimants did not get sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader strongly opposed the plea raised for a remand by contending that the appellants should have adduced evidence in the matter. Considering the facts referred to above, the technicalities cannot stand in the way of remand as the plea is justified on facts and therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the appellants.
Accordingly, we allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the reference court. If any of the I.As are pending for passing orders, the same will be taken up for hearing and appropriate orders will be passed thereon. Thereafter, the reference court will post the cases for evidence and dispose of the matters finally, after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. We also direct that if ultimately it is found that the claimants are entitled for any enhancement on the land value, while awarding interest under Section 28 of the Act, the reference court will consider whether they are entitled for interest for the periods covered by the delay petitions, which were filed before this Court in all these appeals. The parties will appear before the reference court on 15.1.2015.
In L.A.A.No.777 of 2014, there was a delay of 2564 days in filing the appeal. In L.A.A.No.748 of 2014, the delay is for 2545 days. In L.A.A.No.786 of 2014, there is a delay of 2566 days and in L.A.A.No.802 of 2014, the delay is for 2541 days. The learned counsel for the appellants sought for refund of court fee paid. But it is evident that the claimants have paid only 1/3rd court fee. Therefore, we find that the claimants will not be entitled to refund of court fee paid by them. No costs.
Sd/-
T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A. To Judge Jvt