IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 365 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.183/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- 1. SEBASTIAN,S/O.JOSEPH ELAVATHIL, MANJOOR VILLAGE VAIKOM TALUK. 2. VARGHESE, DO..DO... REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JINSON SEBASTIAN,ELAVATHIL HOUSE, MANJOOR VILLAGE VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.365 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimants and the case pertains to acquisition of land in Manjoor village for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation project pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 6/12/2002. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.15625/- per Are, which was enhanced by the reference court, on the basis of the evidence which came on record, to Rs.25,000/- pr Are. In the present appeal, the appellants claim for enhanced land value, towards injurious affection and also value towards the construction of a compound wall which became necessary for the purpose of averting accidents to the general public. We shall deal with the claim for enhanced land value first. 2. We have heard the submission of Sri. Saju John, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. Our attention L.A.A..No.365/2008 2 was drawn by Sri.Saju John to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A. 276/2008. It is seen from that judgment that this court has refixed the land value of identical properties at Rs.31250/- per Are. In the present appeal, the appellants are limiting their claim to Rs.30125/- per Are based on Ext.A2 judgment. Even though Ext.A2 is pending in appeal before this court, in view of the finality attained by the judgment in L.A.A. 276/2008, we are of the view that the appellants can be granted land value at the rate of Rs.30125/- per Are. 3. The appellants' claim for compensation towards construction of a compound wall was turned down by the reference court on the reason that no accidents have been reported though several years have passed after the canal came into existence. We do not find any reason to interfere with that finding of the learned Subordinate Judge. We will only observe that the appellants can always approach a regular civil court for compensation in this context, notwithstanding the judgment of the reference court and our own judgment confirming the same. 4. Serious arguments were addressed by Sri. Saju John regarding the appellants' claim for compensation towards L.A.A..No.365/2008 3 injurious affection. The sketch prepared by an Advocate Commissioner on the basis of an inspection of the acquired properties and the remainder properties of the appellants will reveal that 8.1 Ares of land belonging to the appellants after the acquisition has been completely deprived off road access (See Ext.C1A sketch). Ext.C1A also reveals that a further extent of 1.70 cents remaining after the acquisition under the ownership of the appellants has been reduced to a small triangular piece of land. We do not find any difficulty to hold that the percentage of diminution in respect of the triangular portion extending 1.70 cents is 50%. So also we feel that atleast 10% diminution has been occasional in the value of the 8.1. Ares of the appellants' remainder property which has been rendered without road access. Thus, towards triangular portion, the appellants are entitled, on the basis of our refixation of land value of Rs.30125/- per Are, total compensation of Rs.24401/- and towards 8.1 Ares of land, the appellants become entitled for total compensation of Rs.21334/- per Are. Thus the total enhanced compensation, to which the appellants become eligible towards injurious affection of their remaining properties, will come to L.A.A..No.365/2008 4 Rs.45735/-. However, since the total claim towards injurious affection in this appeal by the claimants is limited to Rs.40,000/-, we award Rs.40,000/- only to the appellants towards the claim for injurious affection. In respect of the enhanced compensation towards land value and for the compensation awarded by us towards injurious affection, the appellants will be eligible for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed as above, but in the circumstances parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk