IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 421 of 2007(A) ------------------------------- LAR.34/2004 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- VIMALA @ MOLLY, W/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT NJARTHANKAL, VADAVUCODE KARA, VADAVUCODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.421 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The appeal need not be treated as defective since there is appearance for the respondent/ State through the learned Senior Government Pleader. This case pertains to acquisition of land in Onakkoor village for the purpose of easing of the curves in Piravam-Thodupuzha road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.13,383/- per Are. Even though evidence was adduced by the claimant/appellant, the Reference Court did not become inclined to rely on the evidence. Ultimately, the Reference Court granted L. A. A. No.421 of 2007 -2- enhancement by just Rs.4,117/- per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised challenging what is described as the gross inadequacy in the compensation fixed by the court below. Sri.Jibu P. Thomas, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us very strenuously on the basis of all those grounds. He drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in LAA.1458/08. We notice that the above judgment pertains to acquisition of identical land acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. Under that judgment allowing the claimant's appeal, this Court has re-fixed the land value at Rs.26,000/- per Are. 3. The argument of Sri.Jibu P. Thomas was L. A. A. No.421 of 2007 -3- that the property under acquisition in this case is nearer to Anchalpetty junction and therefore, is eligible for award of a higher value. We are unable to accept the above submission. Since the Land Acquisition Officer has treated the property here to be of same value as the property covered by LAA.1458/08, the appellant cannot aspire for more than what is awarded to the claimant in LAA.1458/08. 4. Another point which was urged by the learned counsel was that the court below went wrong in not awarding any compensation towards injurious affection of the un-acquired property. We find that the un-acquired portion of the property was a fairly large plot extending to 13 cents. The L. A. A. No.421 of 2007 -4- Commissioner has in general terms reported that the un-acquired property has become slightly reduced in value. The learned Subordinate Judge was not impressed by the Commissioner's Report; nor are we. According to us, case is not made out for awarding of any additional compensation for injurious affection. The result of the above discussion, therefore, is as follows:- 5. The appeal will stand allowed. The market value of the land is re-fixed at Rs.26,000/- per Are. On the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible she will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their L. A. A. No.421 of 2007 -5- respective costs in the appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-