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 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1356 of 2007 ----------------------------- LAR.10/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------- FRANCIS, S/O. VAREED, ELUVATHINGAL, KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KOCHI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA,SC,ROADS & BRI FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1356 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan, J The claimant is in appeal. His land was acquired for construction of Railway over bridge and approach road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 22/04/02. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.23,308/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced it by Rs.29,738/- per Are. Thus, the total land value comes to Rs.53,046/- per Are. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments on all grounds that the land value should be enhanced, we are not impressed by the argument addressed in that behalf. Hence, we confirm the land value fixed by the Reference Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued contending that the structure value fixed L. A. A. No.1356 of 2007 -2- by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and that the Reference Court has enhanced it only by 20%. According to the appellant, the value of the structure fixed by the Reference Court is too low. Considering the fact that the value adopted by PWD will be far less than the actual rate prevalent at the relevant time, we propose to re-fix the structure value at 35% instead of 20% fixed by the Reference Court. Thus, the claimant will be entitled to get Rs.46,143/- more than the value already fixed. 3. The other contention that is advanced by the appellant is that the remaining land ad-measuring 1.125 cents has become totally useless and so, the value for the entire land has to be given as compensation for injurious severence. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that because of the construction of the over bridge the land is now lying in a very low level and it has completely lost the access to the road. The learned Government Pleader points out that the total extent of land held by the claimant was L. A. A. No.1356 of 2007 -3- only 1.5 cents out of which very negligible portion was acquired. The remaining land ad-measuring 1.125 cents with the building thereon is still there. The contention that the acquisition has injuriously affected the rest of the land is found unacceptable. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any amount as compensation on that count. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part granting an enhancement of Rs.46,143/-. The claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23 (1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- L. A. A. No.1356 of 2007 -4-