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 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 89 of 2006() ------------------------ LAR NO.207 OF SUB COURT, THIRUR) APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- VALIYA PEEDIYAKKAL KAMMUKUTTY, S/O. BEERANKUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, PONMUNDAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D (ROADS) DIVISON, MANJERI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 89 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His property situated in Ponmundam village of Thirur Taluk was acquired for the construction of Thirur Bye-pass road. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on28/7/1999. The Land Acquisition Officer relying on Ext.R1 basis document, which reflected land value of Rs.9009/- per cent, made a deduction of 20% and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.7207/- per cent. 2. Before the Reference Court, the appellant had claimed for enhanced land value as well as for compensation towards injurious affection of the unacquired portion of the property. He had a further claim towards compensation for loss of protection of the property as according to him he had become obliged to construct a compound wall for his remainder properties which L.A.A.No.89/2006 2 were reduced to two plots. The Reference Court would evaluate the evidence, which consisted of oral evidence of Aws1 & 2 and RW1 and Exhibits A1 & A2 and R2 commission report Ext.C1 plan and would come to the conclusion that the only document which can be relied on is Ext.R1 itself. However, the court took the view that the land acquisition officer was not justified in making deduction of 20% and would award full value reflected in Ext.R1 i.e. at the rate of 9009 per Are. The Court below did not award any compensation towards injurious affection or for protection of the remainder extent. 3. In this appeal the appellant has raised various grounds and Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail on all those grounds. All the submissions of Mr.Ramachandran were resisted by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan learned senior Government Pleader. 4. Even though Sri.K.Ramachandran would argue strongly that Exts. A1 an A2 are documents which should be relied on for fixing the land value, we are not in a position to accept his arguments as we notice that all these documents are post notification documents. At the same time, we feel that there is L.A.A.No.89/2006 3 justification for refixing the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. We notice that there is a time gap of about two and half years between Ext.R1 document and the date of Section 4(1) notification. It is not in dispute that like any other areas of the State , in Thirur also land value was on increase during the relevant time. Giving reasonable additions for passage of time, the land value of the acquired property can be reasonably fixed at Rs.10,000/- per cent. It is accordingly, refixed. 4. Now we come to the question of compensation for injurious affection. It is seen that the remainder property belonging to the appellant has been reduced to two plots. A substantial portion of one of these plots has become so narrow that reasonable constructions will not be possible on such narrow portion. We are convinced that at least that portion has been injuriously affected to a certain extent. The submissions of Sri.K.Ramachandran that, compound walls will have to be constructed for protecting the two plots which have resulted from the acquisition, also have some appeal. We feel that there is every justification for awarding a total amount of Rs.20,000/- more to the appellant as severance compensation L.A.A.No.89/2006 4 and also towards the amounts necessary for putting up compound walls. We award that amount also to the appellant. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23 (1A) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. But we find that for amounts, which are awarded towards injurious affection and severance compensation, the appellant will not be entitled for the benefit under Section 23 (1A) and solatium under Section 23 (2). The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk