IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No.1002 of 2001() -------------------------- LAR.183/1999 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. IRIMPANAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. USHA, D/O KAMALAKSHY AMMA, VELIKKAKATHU, PONNURUNNI, COCHIN - 682 019. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KRL, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.R.DAMODARAN FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN FOR R1 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1002 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The requisitioning authority/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is in appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court. It is seen that enhancement of compensation has been granted towards injurious affection for the un-acquired portion of the claimant's property as well as towards value of the building which existed on the property under acquisition. The percentage of the dimunition has been fixed by the Reference Court at 20%. We feel that on the facts of this case, the learned Sub Judge was right in fixing the percentage of dimunition and awarding a sum of Rs.83,258/- as total compensation for injurious L. A. A. No.1002 of 2001 -2- affection of the reminder extent of 2.26 Ares of land. But we find that a further amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards the head of injurious affection itself taking into account the possibility of the requisitioning authority digging up the acquired land for bringing the pipeline or laying a new pipeline and the building becoming affected. We are unable to approve the decision of the learned Sub Judge. However, considering the special circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court on that count to Rs.15,000/-. We also find that 50% increase has been given on the structure value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. This is done on the reason that valuation of the building in accordance with PWD schedule of rates will not be a realistic. Here again L. A. A. No.1002 of 2001 -3- while we are agreeing with the learned Sub Judge that valuation of building in accordance with PWD schedule of rates will not be realistic, we are unable to approve the increase of 50% granted by the Reference Court. However, since the total amount awarded on this count is only Rs.22,404/- we are not inclined to interfere. 2. Mr.George Sebastian, learned counsel for the claimant made a fervent appeal for passing of an order of remand for re-determination of the market value of the land. We are unable to accept the above request in this appeal which is preferred by the requisitioning authority. 3. The result of the appeal therefore, is as follows:- The appeal will stand allowed to the limited L. A. A. No.1002 of 2001 -4- extent of reducing the total enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court by Rs.10,000/-. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-