HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
The claimant in L.A.R.No.92/2009 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 in the said case. The extent of land acquired is 0.34 Ares(0.840 cents) and structures therein comprised in Sy.No.485/4 of Ernakulam Village. The property was acquired for the purpose of construction of Pulleppady-Thammanam Railway Overbridge at Pulleppady. Several other properties belonging to others were also acquired under the very same notification for the very same purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer included this property under 'B' category and fixed a sum of Rs.3,20,714/- per Are. The Reference Court re- fixed the land value at Rs.5,61,249/- per Are. Several other land acquisition references including the present case were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In one of the connected cases, namely, L.A.A.No.221/12 -2-
L.A.R.No.91/2009, the claimant filed L.A.A.No.313/2012 before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 11th September 2012 set aside the judgment and decree in that case and remanded the case for fresh disposal. It was further directed that both parties will be entitled to adduce such other evidence and directed the reference court to consider the matter afresh on all aspects of the case and dispose of the same on merits. The claimant in each reference case relied on Exhibit A3 sale deed. In the appeals preferred by some of the claimants, including L.A.R.No.101/2009 (L.A.A.No.393/11) this Court remanded the case for fresh disposal to consider the claim in all respects including the value of Exhibit A3 property claimed by them. On the very same reasoning made in L.A.A.No.393/11 and connected appeals, we are of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court insofar as they relate to the compensation fixed are liable to be set aside.
3. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court are set aside. The case is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. The L.A.A.No.221/12 -3-
court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellant. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 16.7.2014. The appellant shall produce a certified copy of this judgment and a copy of the judgment in L.A.A.No.393/2011 before the court below.
The appeal is preferred with a petition for condonation of delay of 364 days. It is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to claim statutory interest for the said period of delay in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE