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 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 391 of 2009(C) ------------------------------- LAR.91/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYLA BEEGUM,SUNITHA MANZIL, CHEMMANNU VILA,AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM,VENGANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AMEER HAMZA,SUNITHA MANZIL, CHEMMANNU VILA,AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM,VENGANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1-2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.391 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We find much force in the submissions of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader that the issue raised in this appeal by the Government is covered in favour of the Government by judgment of this Court in L.A.A.376/09. According to her, if that judgment is followed, the maximum value that can be granted is only Rs.98,000/-. But as rightly argued by Sri.R.Manoj, the learned counsel for the respondent the property under acquisition was enjoying certain advantages which the property in L.A.A.376/09 did not have. Taking into account those advantages, we are inclined to re-fix the market value of land under acquisition in this case at Rs.1 lakh per Are. L. A. A. No.391 of 2009 -2- We are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation for injurious affection or towards shifting charges. However, it appears that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed a mistake in reckoning the compensation for injurious affection and shifting charges also for the purpose of awarding statutory benefit. It is clarified that the compensation for injurious affection and the shifting charges will not carry statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal will stand allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-