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 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 1130 of 2008(B) -------------------------------- LAR.320/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ Dr. SHEREEFA, AGED 50, D/O. LATE AHAMMED, CHAMPOKKADAVIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O. EDAPPALLY RAILWAY STATION ROAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1130 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. Her property situated in Edappally North village was acquired for the purposes of National Highway 17. The property was included in category-5 i.e. property which does not have direct frontage of the Corporation Road, but only have access to the Corporation Road. The appellant claimed that his property is eligible to be included in category-4 i.e. property having direct frontage of Corporation Road. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report which showed that a portion of the appellant's L. A. A. No.1130 of 2008 -2- property was having direct frontage of the Corporation Road and the property under acquisition was lying adjacent to the above portion. Thus, from the point of view of the appellant, her original holding was enjoying frontage of the Corporation road. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant is justified in claiming that the property under acquisition is also eligible to be included in category-4. For the property under acquisition, the learned Subordinate Judge granted an enhancement of 30% after rejecting the various documents produced by the appellant. It is brought to our notice that in L.A.A.1312/08, this Court has re-fixed the value of land in category-4 L. A. A. No.1130 of 2008 -3- at 45% above the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. above Rs.1,07,220/- per Are and re-fixed the land value at Rs.1,56,000/- per Are. We are of the view that the value of the land under acquisition is liable to be re-fixed at Rs.1,56,000/- per Are. Accordingly, allowing the appeal we re-fix the value of the land at Rs.1,56,000/- per Are. 2. We shall now deal with the appellants claim for compensation for injurious affection. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge herself found that the remainder property of the appellant has been injuriously affected. The learned Subordinate Judge entered a finding that the property covered L. A. A. No.1130 of 2008 -4- by LAR No.281/06 in which the appellant's brother was the claimant, has been injuriously affected more in the sense that the property in this case did not have direct access to the Corporation road. We have already found that the above finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is not correct. Thus, the property covered by LAR.281/06 and the property under acquisition in this appeal are to be treated as identical properties. 3. It is clear from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that on account of the emergence of the over bridge, the level of the remainder property has been reduced to two metres. We feel that the value of the remainder property has been affected at least to an extent of 15%. Naturally, L. A. A. No.1130 of 2008 -5- the appellant has to be awarded 15% of the value as determined by us as compensation for injurious affection. So calculated the total amount will come to Rs.86,185/-. After deducting the sum of Rs.5,000/- already paid by the learned Subordinate Judge the appellant will have to be awarded a further amount of Rs.81,185/- as compensation for injurious affection. We award that amount to the appellant. But, we make it clear that while the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhancement that he is getting towards value of land, for the amount which he is getting towards compensation for injurious affection, he L. A. A. No.1130 of 2008 -6- will be entitled for statutory interest under section 28 only. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-