IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 142 of 2001(A) -------------------------- LAR.30/1997 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS -------------- 1. P.K.DAMODARAN 'LATHA' KANNANCHERY, KOZHIKODE ( DIED) 2. PUTHIYA PARAMBATH KINATTUMKARA NARAYANI AMMA, D/O CHATHUKUTTY RESIDING AT PUTHIYA PURAYIL PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM 3. - DO- VENUGOPALAN, - DO- 4. -DO- MANI, S/O BALARAMAN, -DO- 5. - DO- GOPINATHAN, S/O CHATHUKUTTY -DO- 6. -DO- SATHYAVATHY, D/O CHATHUKUTTY, -DO- 7. -DO-, RUGMINI AMMA, D/O CHATHUKUTTY, -DO- 8. -DO- VALSALA AMMA, D/O. CHATHUKUTTY -DO- 9. -DO- AMBUJAM, D/O BALARAMAN -DO- ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 10. K.LEELA, W/O LATE P.K.DAMODARAN AGED 65 YEARS RESIDING AT LATHA KANNANCHERRY, KOZHIKODE 11. P.V.APPUKKUTTAN, S/O LATE P.K.DAMODARAN LAA.No.142/01 AGED 49 YEARS , RESIDING AT -DO- 12. P.V.SOBANA, D/O LATE P.K.DAMODARAN AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO- 13. P.V.BABURAJ, S/O LATE P.K.DAMODARAN AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO- 14. P.V.USHA, D/O LATE P.K.DAMODARAN AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO- 15 P.V.LATHA, D/O LATE P.K.DAMODARAN AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO- Additional appellants 10 to 15 are impleaded as the LRs of the deceased 1st appellant vide order dated 22-08-2005 on I.A.No.745/2000. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOYILANDY 2. THE SECRETARY KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No. 142 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal filed by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land in Panthalayani village within the area of Koyilandy Municipality for the establishment of Municipal market at Koyilandy. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 27/07/1995. The land acquisition officer categorised the land under acquisition into two categories. Category No.1 i.e. lands having frontage of road were awarded land value of Rs. 10,105/- per cent. Category No.2 i.e. lands without road frontage were awarded only Rs. 9093/- 2. The evidence before the reference court consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B3, Commissioner's report Ext.C1 and C2 approved by CW1 Commissioner and oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 on the side of the claimants and RWs 1 and 2 on the side of the respondents. Learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on Exts.A1 to A3. Instead, reliance was placed on LAA.No.142/2001 2 Ext.B1 judgment of the same court in L.A.R.No.28/1997 produced by the requisitioning authority themselves. Ext.B1 was in respect of acquisition for the very same purpose and pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification. Learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the evidence found that the acquired property was situated in a commercially more important area than Ext.B1 property and on that reason increased the value given to Ext.B1 property by 5% and would fix the value to be awarded to the acquired properties in this case at Rs.16,350/- being 5% above the rate of Rs 15,575/- which had been given to Ext.B1 properties. 3. This appeal is preferred by the claimants raising various grounds and assailing the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the market value of the acquired property is only Rs. 16,350/- per cent. We have heard the submissions of Sri.A.P.Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader for the State. 4. Though Sri.A.P.Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel, LAA.No.142/2001 3 would argue that there was every justification on the basis of Ext.A1 to A3 and the oral testimonies of claimant's witnesses to award atleast Rs.1,00,000/- towards land value, the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded only Rs. 16,350/-. Learned senior counsel would also mention that there was an appeal against Ext.B1 and in appeal, the land value under Ext.B1 has been refixed by this court as Rs. 18,000/- per cent. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the court below went wrong in not awarding any amount towards appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder property. Learned senior counsel submitted that on account of the acquisition, the open front yard of the commercial building of the claimants, which now stands on the remainder property belonging to the claimant has been reduced considerably with the result that the claimants can no longer aspire to accomplish their long cherished need of constructing other buildings on the front yard space. 5. Sri.M.Sasindran would resist all the submissions of Sri.A.P.Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel. According to him, even the sum of Rs. 16,350/- fixed by the court is exorbitant. LAA.No.142/2001 4 Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader while agreeing that the re-determination of market value for the properties under Ext.B1 can have some relevance in this case submitted that there is no justification for granting 5% more than the value refixed by this court to Ext.B1 property under this court's judgment. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. The appealing submissions of Sri.A.P.Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel, notwithstanding, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in relying on Ext.B1 and granting 5% increase based on the evidence which was available on record over the value given to Ext.B1. We have perused the judgment of this court in L.A.A.No.993/1999 which was filed against Ext.B1 judgment. It is seen from the judgment that this court has refixed the market value of the lands covered by Ext.B1 at Rs. 18,000/- per cent. According to us, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the acquired property was slightly superior to Ext.B1 property in terms of commercial importance of the locality is justified. Therefore, there is every justification for granting 5% more than what is finally granted to LAA.No.142/2001 5 Ext.B1 property by this court. Computing that way, the amount will come to Rs. 18,900/- only. We round off the same to Rs. 19,000/- and refix the market value of the property acquired in this case at Rs. 19,000/- We are not at all impressed by the submissions of Sri.A.P.Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel, regarding the appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection. The result is that the appeal will stand allowed to the extent of refixing the market value of the land at Rs. 19,000/- . It is decreed accordingly. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they are entitled by this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. LAA.No.142/2001 6