IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 683 of 2003() ------------------------- LAR.43/1991 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. ANAMMA GEORGE, VELICHAPPATTUMANNIL VEEDU PRAMADOM MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE.(DIED) 2. GEORGE V.GEORGE, DO. DO. 3. THOMAS V.GEORGE, DO. DO. 4. JOHN V.GEORGE, DO. DO. 5. ABRAHAM V.GEORGE, DO. DO. 6. GEORGE JOHN, DO. DO. ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT: MARY JOHN W/O LATE GEORGE JOHN, VELICHAPPATTUMANNIL VEEDU, PRAMADOM MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 6-11-2009 ON I.A. NO. 3894/09. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DT. 6-11-09 ON MEMO CF. 9774/04 ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR FOR R2 TO 7 SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR FOR R2 TO R7 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 683 of 2003 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. We have already found that reliance placed on A3 was justified. Of course, the learned senior Govt. Pleader Smt. Latha T. Thankappan's argument is that A3 has not much relevance since Section 4(1) notification relating to A3 was published some 18 years earlier. That may be so, but according to us, during these periods the value of the property which in the central area of Pathanamthitta Town has increased considerably and hence the value given in A3 will certainly have some relevance. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the re-fixation of market value of land under the impugned judgment. The Government has raised serious grounds against the award of severance compensation. It became evident that the entire property was enjoying frontage of roads on three sides. But LAA. No. 683/03 - 2 - admittedly, after the acquisition the remainder property has been deprived of road frontage on one side. The percentage of diminution found by the learned Sub Judge is 10%. According to us, it is the correct percentage which has been fixed by the learned Sub Judge in respect of the diminution sustained by the unacquired property. 2. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the percentage of diminution fixed by the learned Sub Judge. At the same time we notice merit in the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that the Court below was not justified in awarding the additional amount under section 23(1A) on the severance compensation granted. Severance compensation is a compensation granted not in respect of the acquired property but in respect of the property not under acquisition. That being so, the claimant respondent is not entitled for the additional amount under section 23(1A). We set aside that part of the impugned judgment awarding LAA. No. 683/03 - 3 - Section 23(1A) benefit for the severance compensation also. The judgment and decree under appeal will stand modified to that extent only. In all other respects, the impugned judgment will stand confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/- LAA. No. 683/03 - 4 - PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. LAA. No. 683 OF 2003 J U D G M E N T 6th November, 2009.