The 'A' claimant in L.A.R.No.3/02 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Irinjalakkuda, in respect of a Reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, has come up in appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the said court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.
K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.G. Sreekumar(Chelur) for the 3rd respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the court below has proceeded with an assumption that the parties had arrived at terms and had agreed to pass a judgment as the one passed by the court below. It has been pointed out that in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment the court below has recorded, “But during argument both sides have conceded that as this amount is entitled by them they have reached to a consensus by which both of them submitted that from the 2.823 cents the two cents to be included in the acquired property of A claimant and .823 cents to be included in the property of B claimant. In fact for doing such an adjustment there is no oral or documentary evidence.”
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the learned counsel for the appellant had never made such an oral assertion or undertaking before the court below. It is evident that no written undertaking was obtained by the court below from both the counsel for the claimants.
In such a case, especially when the matter involves huge amount of money, the court below ought not to have proceeded with on the basis of mere oral assertions allegedly made, without obtaining an undertaking in black and white. It seems that the court below has committed a grave error in passing such a judgment merely basing on the so called oral assertions of any other parties, especially when the court below could find that there was no oral or documentary evidence before the court below for such an adjustment. Matters being so, the impugned judgment has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. In the result, this Land Acquisition Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the court below on 11.08.2014.
Being an open remand, the entire court fee paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, under Section 67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Evaluation Act.
ul/-
[True copy] Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE P.S. to Judge