IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1023 of 2004() -------------------------- LAR.203/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- K.P.VIVEKANANDAN, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, ZEENA BHAVAN, MANGAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(LA), NH., KOLLAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1023 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His land in Mangad Village of Kollam District was acquired for the purpose of National Highway. He was awarded land value at the rate of Rs.12,415/- per Are. He was awarded building value for building having door No.56/11 at Rs.94,779/-. There were two coconut trees in the property and for those trees he was awarded Rs.1000/-. Before the reference court he had claimed enhancement in land value, building value and value of the coconut trees. He had a further claim for "injurious affection" on the reason that conduct of an oil mill he used to conduct previously had become impossible as the portion where the mill building was situated was acquired. The court below would refix land value at Rs.24,700/- per Are on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Before the court below the appellant gave evidence to the RCR. 387/06 -2- effect that there were two buildings on the lands which were acquired. The court below was not very much impressed by the oral evidence adduced by the party regarding the number of buildings which existed on the lands acquired. The court did not award any enhancement towards the building value. The claim for injurious affection also was not favourably considered. No enhancement was granted by the court below towards the value of the coconut trees. 2. In this appeal several grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the reference court. We have heard Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Govt. Pleader. 3. It is true that only one building existed on the land which was actually acquired from the appellant and not two buildings as the appellant told the learned Sub Judge. But it appears to us that the learned Judge has not considered the question whether any enhancement ought to be granted towards the value of that building which was actually RCR. 387/06 -3- acquired. The L.A. Officer awarded Rs.94,779/- for that building on the basis of the valuation prepared by the Public Works Department. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings as per the PWD schedule of rates is not a practical proposition. We feel that there is every justification for awarding Rs.28,000/- more to the appellant towards value of the building which actually existed on the property. We award so much amount towards that count. 4. As for the land value, we notice the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 533 of 2006 and re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.26,100/-. We are not impressed by the claim for injurious affection raised in this appeal by the appellant. Injurious affection is a compensation to be awarded with reference to the unacquired portion of the property under acquisition. Here the oil mill in question was situated on the acquired property and the appellant was awarded not only land value RCR. 387/06 -4- but also value of the mill building. He cannot aspire for injurious affection in the context of the oil mill building. The maximum that he can aspire for is shifting charges. We feel that there is justification for awarding Rs.3000/- to the appellant towards shifting charges in respect of the oil mill. We award so much amount to the appellant towards shifting charges. Appeal is allowed as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under section 23 (1A), 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, it is clarified that for the sum of Rs.3000/- we have awarded as shifting charges, he will not be entitled for any statutory benefit except the one under section 28. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-