IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 2075 of 2008 ----------------------------- LAR.78/2001 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): SUPPL.2ND RESPONDENT (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.161/04 DATED 09/02/2004) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN LAR ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.KUNHIKUTTY AMMA ALIAS, THANKAMMU AMMA, KAVUNGAT HOUSE, PAPPINIPPARA, IRUMBUZHI. 2. P.K.VENUGOPALAN, KAVAYANGAT HOUSE, PAPPINIPPARA, IRUMBUZHI. 3. P.K.RADHA, KAVAYANGAT HOUSE, PAPPINIPPARA, IRUMBUZHI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.2075 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Requisitioning Authority, the Kerala Water Authority is in appeal. Under challenge is the judgment of the Reference Court by which market value of the land has been re-fixed at ` 11,782/- per cent and a lump sum of ` 2 lakhs has been awarded as compensation for injurious affection. Even though apparently attractive grounds have been raised and the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Authority addressed very strenuous arguments in support of the grounds and having scanned the impugned judgment, we do not find reason for interference. Market value was re-fixed by the court below on the basis of Ext.A3 judgment. The significance of Ext.A3 is that the property L. A. A. No.2075 of 2008 -2- therein was the adjacent property which along with the property under acquisition formed one holding belonging to the claimants. Under Ext.A3, this Court has re-fixed land value at Rs.9,818/- per cent. What the learned Sub Judge has done is to add 20% for the passage of time between Ext.A3 and the relevant Section 4(1) notification in the present case. Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the award for ` 2 lakhs for compensation for injurious affection is not supported by any material, we find that the learned Sub Judge had before him Exts.X1 series and Commission Report, sketches and plans. Ext.X1 series clearly shows that the unacquired property has been reduced to bits and many of them were remaining landlocked within the area of acquired property. The learned Sub Judge found that under a similar situation where the extent of unacquired property was far less, the court awarded ` 60,000/- as lump sum compensation for injurious L. A. A. No.2075 of 2008 -3- affection. We feel that the present award of ` 2 lakhs cannot be said to be exorbitant. We are not inclined to interfere with the award also. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances both the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-