IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1142 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.39/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, GOLULAM, NEERAVIL CHERRY,THRIKKADAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1142 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal preferred by the claimant whose property in Thrikkadavur Village was acquired for the purpose of National Highway, Kollam. The learned Subordinate Judge refixed the land value at Rs.37,000/- per Are. The appellant has no grievance about the refixation of land value at the above rate. 2. The Government Pleader submitted that the Government has filed a memorandum of Cross Objection against the refixation of the land value. The above memorandum is not listed before us today. Merits of the memorandum of Cross Objection will be considered as and when the same is listed. 3. In this appeal, the claims are two fold. First is that the Reference Court did not award interest on the solatium component of the total compensation awarded to the claimant. LAA.No.1142/2007 2 Considering this claim, we clarify that the solatium component of the total compensation allowed by the Reference Court will also carry interest under Section 28 of the Act. 4. The second claim is that the court below after having accepted Ext.C1 commission report, did not award any compensation for injurious affection. Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.C1 report is to the effect that the remainder property extending to 1.60 Ares was rendered valueless on account of the acquisition in the present manner. Ext.C1 report was accepted by the Court. The Court below should have awarded reasonable compensation for injurious affection, so submitted the learned counsel. 5. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are convinced that there is considerable merits in the above submission. We feel that the percentage of diminution sustained by the remainder property has been at least 45%. Calculating the compensation that way, we award to the appellant Rs.26,640/- towards compensation for injurious affection. The compensation, which we are awarding, will not carry the benefits under Section 23(2) or 23 (1A), it will carry LAA.No.1142/2007 3 the benefits under Section 28 only. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk