IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1782 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.47/2001 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- C.P.KARTHIAYANI, W/O LATE CHAKRAPANY, KORALADY AKKARA HOUSE, MUTTY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA)NO.1 KRP & BSIP, KALPETTA. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1,2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1782 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and raises two points. The first point is that the reference court, which determined the market value of the properties under acquisition by adopting a multiplier of 12, ought to have adopted a higher multiplier. We are unable to accept this ground. According to us, even the multiplier of 12 adopted by the reference court was against the decision of the Supreme Court. However, we are approving adoption of multiplier of 12, since we find that it is a coffee plantation which was acquired. The other ground raised is that land having an extent of 160 metres in length and 1.65 metres width by the side of the canal has been rendered useless on account of the acquisition. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that compensation for injurious affection ought to have been granted for this portion of the land. On going through the impugned judgment, we find that the appellant had report submitted by the advocate commissioner in support of the L.A.A.No.1782/2007 2 claim for compensation for injurious affection. But what we notice is that the claim raised at the time of argument of the LAR was not one specifically for compensation towards injurious affection, but was for the amount necessary for construction of a retaining wall for protecting the above portion of the land from sliding. Though the commission report was some what in favour of the claimant, in cross examination by the Government Pleader, the advocate commissioner stated that the property of the appellant claimant was situated away from the margin of the canal. We feel that since it is clear that atleast a portion of the appellant's unacquired property has been injuriously affected on account of the acquisition, the question of awarding compensation to the appellant towards injurious affection of the unacquired property should be examined specifically by the learned Sub Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the LAR to the sub court, Sulthan Bathery. That court will decide the question regarding the extent of the claimant's unacquired property actually affected by the acquisition and also regarding the percentage of diminution in L.A.A.No.1782/2007 3 the value sustained by that portion. Both sides are given permission to adduce whatever further evidence they want to in the context of the above claim for compensation for injurious affection. Since the Government cannot be blamed for necessitating this order of remand, we are not inclined to order refund of court fee at all. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk