IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No.1458 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- LAR.52/2004 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ DEVASSIA, S/O.OUSEPH, KALLAMCHIRAYIL, OONAKKUR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1458 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. The acquisition was of the property in Onakkoor village. The purpose was for easing of curves in Piravam - Thodupuzha road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 22/10/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13,383/- per Are. The Reference Court relying on Ext.A1 judgment in respect of acquisition in the same village would re-fix land value at Rs.17,500/- per Are. The appellant had a claim for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder extent of the properties. According to the L. A. A. No.1458 of 2008 -2- appellant, the remainder extents were injuriously affected by at least 25% and in this regard, the appellant relied on reports submitted by an approved Valuer. The approved Valuer had also reported that the correct market value of the property at the relevant time will be Rs.38,000/- per Are. The court below did not place much reliance on the report submitted by the approved Valuer. But placing reliance on Ext.A1, the court below awarded land value at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Are, i.e. the rate which was awarded under Ext.A1 itself. 2. In this appeal, the appellant impugns the re- fixation of market value of the land as well as the decision of the learned Judge declining any award towards compensation for injurious affection. L. A. A. No.1458 of 2008 -3- 3. We have heard Smt.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader. Smt.Bindu would address submissions based on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. Our attention was drawn to the report of the Valuer and also to Ext.A1. According to Smt.Bindu, the report having been submitted by an approved Valuer, should have been relied on. He submitted lastly that based on Ext.A1 itself there is justification for awarding much more enhancement. 4. All the submissions of Smt.Bindu were resisted by Sri.Basant, the learned senior Government Pleader who would support the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. L. A. A. No.1458 of 2008 -4- 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have made a re-appraisal of the evidence. According to us, the court below was justified in not placing reliance on the report of the Valuer. But, at the same time, we feel that having decided that the property under acquisition is comparable to Ext.A1 and that the same value should be given to the properties under acquisition, the court below ought to have taken into account the passage of time. Between the relevant section 4(1) notification in the present case and Ext.A1, seven years' time. Onakkoor is a rural area and we feel that at least 50% of the value determined under Ext.A1 should be added to that value for arriving at the correct value of the property under acquisition. Re-calculating the value of the properties that way, we re-fix the market value of L. A. A. No.1458 of 2008 -5- the land under acquisition at Rs.26,000/- per Are. We are unable to accept the claim of the appellant for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder properties. Of course, the approved Valuer had stated that the percentage of diminution will be at least 25%. On going through the rough sketch prepared by the approved Valuer, we find that the remainder property belonging to the appellant is two regular house plots. Smt.Bindu submitted that both the remainder plots are very narrow. But the sketch submitted by the approved valuer does not give support to the above argument. It appears to us that the two house plots which remain with the claimant can be utilised by the appellant as house plots. In a way the market value of the house plots has increased due to the emergence of the road in between. At any rate, we do not find L. A. A. No.1458 of 2008 -6- ground to uphold the appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection. 6. The result is that the appeal allowed to the extent of re-fixing market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.26,000/- per Are. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 7. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-