IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No.99 of 2006 (D) ------------------------------- LAR.72/2002 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: -------------------------------- ATHIYATTIL AYISHUMMU, W/O. KUNHIMARAKKAR (LATE), PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOTT-TIRUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.99 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is the appellant and according to him, the compensation re-determined by the Reference Court is quite inadequate. The acquisition was for construction of a ring road at Tirur town. The Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 11/08/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs.20,483/- per cent relying on Ext.R1 basis document. In fact, Ext.R1 basis document revealed a land value of Rs.22,699/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer deducted 10% and fixed land value at Rs.20,483/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellant/claimant relied mostly on Ext.A1 sale L. A. A. No.99 of 2006 -2- deed. Ext.A1 was sale deed in respect of an adjacent property and the same was executed three years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A1 sale deed revealed a market value of Rs.41,575/- per cent. The learned Sub Judge would reject Ext.A1 from the reckoning on two grounds. The first ground was that upon Ext.A1 property, there existed a building. The second ground was that Ext.A1 property was having access of main road while the acquired property did not have access of main road. The appellant had a claim for compensation towards injurious affection of the remainder property of the appellant. The learned Sub Judge relying on the Commissioner's Report upheld that claim to a certain extent and awarded Rs.29,317/- on that count. In this appeal, the appellant claims re-fixation of market value at L. A. A. No.99 of 2006 -3- Rs.30,200/- per cent based on Ext.A1 and also claims a further amount of Rs.7,500/- towards compensation for injurious affection. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Government Pleader. Our attention was drawn by Sri.Ramachandran to Ext.A1 document as the learned counsel argued that the observation of the learned Sub Judge that there existed a building on Ext.A1 property is wrong. Having gone through Ext.A1, we are convinced that the submission of the learned counsel is quite correct. Ext.A1 does not reveal the existence of any building. In fact, Ext.A1 only refers to a building which situated on the larger holding, part of which is Ext.A1 property. It is true L. A. A. No.99 of 2006 -4- that Ext.A1 property did enjoy the frontage of the main road. But at the same time, it is in evidence that the acquired property enjoyed the frontage of an ordinary road. It is not as if that Ext.A1 acquired property was without road frontage at all. Both the properties were situated close by and were in close proximity to the Tirur Bus Stand. We are of the view that deductions can be made on the value recorded in Ext.A1 for arriving at the value of the acquired property. Making proper deductions the correct market value of the acquired property relying on Ext.A1 itself can be fixed at Rs.30,000/- per cent. Accordingly, we re-fix land value of the properties under acquisition at Rs.30,000/- per cent. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we find that the grievance of the appellant that the L. A. A. No.99 of 2006 -5- remainder property has been reduced to an irregular plot is somewhat genuine. As a matter of fact, the learned Sub Judge also noticed the genuineness in the above grievance. We feel that on a better assessment, the correct amount to be awarded to the appellant towards injurious affection of the remainder property is Rs.35,630/-. This means that the appellant is awarded a further amount of Rs.5,630/- towards injurious affection of the remainder property. 4. The result is that the appeal stands allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of the re-fixation of land value done under this L. A. A. No.99 of 2006 -6- judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their costs in this appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-