IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 LA.App.No. 1000 of 2010(D) --------------------------- LAR.15/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ---------------------- SATHI RAJAGOPAL, SATHI VIHAR, ENKAKKAD.P.O., WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (L.A.)GENERA, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PREETHI BUILDINGS, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(NO MEMO) FOR R1,2 SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA,SC,ROADS & BRI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 967 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ===================== L.A.A. NOS. 967 OF 2010 & 1000 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of December 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Both these appeals preferred by claimants were decided by the Reference Court under the common judgment along with other cases and hence these appeals can be decided by us conveniently by one judgment. The properties under acquisition were situated in Killannur village and the acquisition was for the purpose of Railway Bridge at Mulankunnathukavu. The land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value included this property involved in L.A.A.No.1000/20100 corresponding to L.A.R No.15/2008 in category-II and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.65,820/- per Are. The property involved in L.A.A.No.967/2010 corresponding to L.A.R No.23/2008 was included by the Land Acquisition Officer in category-III and he awarded land value at the rate of Rs.24,710/-. The Reference LAA 967/2010 & 1000/2010 -2- Court under the impugned awards refixed the value of the properties involved in L.A.A.No.1000/2010 at Rs.98,730/- per Are. Similarly, the value of the property involved in L.A.A.No.967/2010 corresponding to L.A.R.No.23/2008 was enhanced to Rs.33,358.05 per Are. In these appeals, it is contended that the market value of land redetermined by the Reference Court was inadequate. It is further urged that the court below went wrong in not awarding any compensation for injurious affection of the unacquired property. The submissions made before us by Mr.Santhosh Poduval, learned counsel for the appellants and the submissions were very strictly resisted by Shyson Manguzha for the Requisitioning Authority(RBD). Mr. Manguzha very strongly supported the submissions of Mr. C.R.Shyam Kumar, learned Government Pleader. We have gone through the judgment of the Reference Court. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence. Our attention is drawn by Mr.Santhosh Poduval to judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.1070/2010 under which this Court has refixed the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.1,60,000/-. According to Mr. Santhosh Poduval, as the property in L.A.A.No.1070/2010 and the properties involved in these two appeals were lying LAA 967/2010 & 1000/2010 -3- adjacently. There is justification for awarding a uniform rate for these properties. This request was very strictly opposed by Mr.Shyson Manguzha as well as the Government Pleader Mr.C.R. Shyam Kumar. According to us, the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per are fixed by this Court was for the property included in category-I whereas the properties in category-II were inferior in category-I. The properties in category-III were still inferior. Mr.Santhosh Poduval submitted that in the case there is commission report to the effect that in L.A.A. No.1000/2010, the remained property extending to 0.84 Ares has been affected very much due to the acquisition. The value of that portion which has not been acquired, has been reduced by at least 50%. Learned counsel submitted that in L.A.A.No.967/2010, the value of the remained property extending to 1.4.3 Ares has been injuriously affected even to a greater extent. The court below was not justified in not awarding any compensation for injurious affection in spite of Commissioner's report which were not challenged. Reply of Mr.Shyson Manguzha and Mr.Shyam Kumar, Government Pleader to the above submissions was that it is not correct to say that the unacquired properties have become valueless. Even now the unacquired properties can be put to LAA 967/2010 & 1000/2010 -4- several profitable uses. At the most the value has been injuriously affected by 10%. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that reliance to a considerable extent can be placed on the judgment in L.A.A. No.1070/2010 for fixing the market value, but the value awarded to the appellant in that case cannot be awarded to the appellants in this case. The appellants can ask only for proportionate enhancement. Accordingly, we refix the value of the land under acquisition in L.A.A.No.1000/2010 at Rs.1,20,000/- per Are. Similarly we refix the value of the land under acquisition in L.A.A.No.967/2010 at Rs.50,000/- per Are. We are of the view that the court below was not justified in not awarding any compensation for injurious affection of the unacquired property in L.A.A.No.1000/2010. We are convinced that the unacquird property in that case extending to 0.84 Ares has been affected at least by 25%. Hence, we award to the appellants in that case compensation at the rate of 30,000/-- per Are for 4.84 Ares of the unacquired property. The Same rate of injurious affection has been sustained by the unacquired property in L.A.A.No.967/2010 extending to 1.43 Ares. We award to the appellant in that appeal LAA 967/2010 & 1000/2010 -5- compensation for injurious affection at the rate of 7,500/- per Are for 1.43 Ares. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits for refixed compensation. However, the compensation which is awarded to them for injurious affection will carry only interest under Section 28 and not the components under Section 23(2) and 23(1)(a) of the Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The decree copy will be issued to the appellants only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum. The appeals are allowed as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE ks. LAA 967/2010 & 1000/2010 -6-