IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 803 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.135/2000 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. PAILY ANNAMMA, D/O PAILY, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. AGNES, D/O PAILY, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. PAILY, S/O PAILY, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.BINU B.SAMUEL SRI.PRIJITH P. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 803 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants are in appeal. The appeal is confined to their claim for compensation for injurious affection of the unacquired property and a few other claims. Exts.C2 and C2(b) will show that the plots noted by the commissioner as plot Nos. 2 and 5, which are remaining under the ownership of the appellants after the acquisition, having completely deprived of access of the Panchayat road which the original holding was enjoying. The learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment did not become inclined to place reliance on Exts.C2 and C2(b) plan submitted by the commissioner on the reason that the inspection by the commissioner is several years after the notification under Section 4(1). We are convinced that the above two plots extending to a total 81.231 cents have been injuriously affected . The market value has been refixed by the learned Sub Judge at the rate of Rs.4503/- per cent. The above decision LAA.No.803/2007 2 of the Reference Court has been approved by this court in other cases. We are of the view that for 81.231 cents of the unacquired property of the appellants, they should be given compensation at the rate of Rs.900.6 which is equal to 20% of the market value refixed by the court for one cent of land. 2. Smt.Sudha Babu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that level of the canal bund is lower than that of the remainder properties of the appellants and therefore it is absolutely necessary that a retaining wall is constructed. According to her, the amounts necessary for constructing the retaining wall is also to be awarded under the count of compensation for injurious affection. We cannot agree. We do not find any way to award the above claim of the appellants. We do not find merit in any other grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. The result of the appeal is, therefore, as follows; i). The appeal is allowed. ii). We award a sum of Rs.73,155/- which we round off to Rs.74,000/- as compensation for injurious affectation over LAA.No.803/2007 3 and above what is awarded by the Reference Court. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. It is clarified that the above amount will not carry the solatium under Section 23 (2) or the additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Act. However, the above amount will certainly carry interest admissible under Section 28 of the Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk