IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 670 of 2001(B) -------------------------- LAR.187/1997 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS -------------- 1. C.V.VARGHESE, S/O IYPE VARKEY PADINJAREKOOT, NEDUNGADAPPILLY KARA KARUKACHAL, CHANGANASSERY BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.P.U.KURIAKOSE, PULLAMKOTTU HOUSE 2. MRS. MARY VARGHESE, W/O C.V.VARGHESE - DO- -DO-, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.P.U.KURIAKOSE -DO - -DO- BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ALIAS SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM 2. SENIOR INSTALLATION MANAGER BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, IRUMPANAM KOCHI - 682 309 BY SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SMT.PRIYA KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR R2 SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009 ALONG WITH L.A.A.NO.649/01 & 400/02, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 670 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the land acquisition reference court have preferred this appeal. The acquisition was for the purposes of the second respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation pursuant to a notification published on 15/02/1997. The acquired property was situated at a distance of just 300 metres from Vyttila junction which is one of the most important road junctions in the state. The land acquisition officer categorised the properties under acquisition into 3. Included in category 1 were properties having frontage of Palarivattom-Vyttila road and for those properties the awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 2,67,600/- per Are. Included in category 2 were properties having frontage of tarred road and for those properties the awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 2,14,200/- per Are. Included in LAA.No.670/01 2 category 3 were properties having frontage of pipeline road and for those properties the awarding officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 1,84,200/- per Are. 2. The appellants/claimants claimed enhancement in land value and also compensation towards injurious affection of the remainder property. According to the appellant, the land acquisition officer was not justified in including his property in category 3. He claimed that his properties were enjoying the frontage of National Highway and hence his property should have been included in category 1 or treated as a category superior to category 1. A Commissioner was issued by the reference court and the Commissioner filed Ext.C1 report and C1(a) sketch. The Commissioner was examined as a witness. On going through the Commissioner's report and the testimony of the Commissioner, it is seen that the acquired property was enjoying the frontage of not only the Pipeline road but also of the service road of the National Highway. 3. Sri.M.M.Alias, learned counsel for the appellants would place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in LAA.No.670/01 3 L.A.A.No.620/2002 and he submitted that following that judgment, the appellant's property also should be included in category 1 and the land value of the appellant's property should be refixed as Rs. 2,67,600/- as was done in that case. 4. We have gone through the judgment in L.A.A.No.620/2002. We find that the property in that case was included by the land acquisition officer in category 2 and it was noticed by the Division Bench of this court in the judgment that the said property was actually enjoying the frontage of three roads. Our perusal of Ext.C1 and C1(a) reveals that the acquired property in this case was enjoying the frontage of not only the Pipeline road but to a certain extent the frontage of service road of the National Highway. In our opinion, the market value of the acquired property at the relevant time should have been equal to the value of the properties which had been included by the land acquisition officer in category 2. Accordingly, we refix the land value of the acquired properties in this case at Rs. 2,14,100/- per Are ( Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand one hundred). LAA.No.670/01 4 5. The appellants had claimed a sum of Rs. 82,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection of his unacquired properties. According to the appellant, because of the acquisition, the remainder properties were completely deprived of the frontage of the service road of the National Highway. The above case of the appellant has support in Ext.C1 Commissioner's report. At the same time, it should be noticed that the main road the frontage of which was enjoyed by the entire holdings of the appellant before acquisition was the Pipeline road and the remainder property will continue to enjoy the frontage of that road. At the same time, we notice that on account of the deprivation of the frontage of the service road of National Highway some diminution has been occasioned to the value of the remainder properties of the appellant. Taking that into account, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only) as lump sum compensation toward injurious affection. It is needless to mention that for the entire enhanced compensation to which the appellant becoming entitled under this judgment, he will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. LAA.No.670/01 5 The appeal is allowed to the above extent. But in the circumstances, the parties will suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.670/01 6