IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 376 of 2002(D) -------------------------- [LAR.NO.24/1994 OF SUB COURT,THRISSUR] .................... APPELLANTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTUION), GURUVAYUR DIVISION,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE, SMT. ASHA CHERIAN, S.C.,RAILWAYS. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------------------------------------------------------------- * 1. C.V.PETER S/O.CHOWALLOOR VAREETH, CHAKUMKANDAM,CHAVAKKAD. *(DIED) 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),RAILWAY NO.11, THRISSUR . *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IMPLEADED: 3. LUCY PETER, W/O. C.V. PETER, CHOWALLOOR HOUSE, CHAKKUMKANDAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. 4. RONI JACOB, S/O. C.V. PETER, CHOWALLOOR HOUSE, CHAKKUMKANDAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. 5. MARY SHERIN PETER, W/O. JERRY P. VINCENT, PULIKOTTIL CHIMMEN, CHITTATTUKARA, BRAHMAKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. L.A.A. NO. 376/2002: 6. TRESA ROSAN PETER, D/O. C.V. PETER, CHOWALLOR HOUSE, CHAKKUMKANDAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS LR'S OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT. 08/04/10 IN I.A. 486/10. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL, ADDL. R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI. JIJO PAUL. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011,ALONG WITH C.O. NO. 56 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A No.376 of 2002 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The requisitioning authority railway is in appeal. According to them the total compensation redetermined by the reference court for the property of the claimants situated in Chavakkad Village within the limits of Chavakkad Municipality acquired for Thrissur-Guruvayoor Railway line, is excessive. The Land Acquisition Officer categorized the property under acquisition into two categories. First category being converted dry land with road frontage and second category being converted dry land without road frontage. For the first category he awarded value at the rate of Rs.9,900/- per are. For the second category he awarded value at the rate of Rs.9350/- per are. Apart from the land value he awarded a total amount of Rs.74,852/- towards value of improvements. He awarded certain other amounts towards different other counts. Before the reference court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A4, oral evidence of AWs1 and AW2 and commissioner's report and plan are marked as Exts.X1, L.A.A No.376 of 2002 2 X2 and X2(a). On evaluating the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge would hold that the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in including the lands under acquisition in two categories was not justified. On evaluating the evidence awarded a uniform rate of Rs.15,000/- per are as land value. He awarded a further amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the trees for which no compensation have been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from these two items he awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for injurious affection, for a portion of the property which had been deprived of any road frontage on account of the acquisition. In this appeal preferred by the Railway various grounds are raised as assailing the decision of the reference court. 2. Sri.M.C.Cherian, the learned standing counsel for the railway made very strenuous submissions before us based on the grounds. He submitted that appreciation of the documentary evidence of the Learned Subordinate Judge is quite improper. The land value awarded is quite excessive. He also challenged the award of lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards injurious affection for the unacquired property. According to him, the learned Subordinate Judge has not determined the L.A.A No.376 of 2002 3 extent of diminution which was necessary before he awarded compensation for injurious affection. All these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is resisted by Sri.Jijo Paul, the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr.Jijo Paul submitted that the property is situated in Chavakkad Municipality where the land value has always been very high. The rate of Rs.6,000/- per cent presently awarded is ridiculously low. He drew our attention to memorandum of cross objection. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Standing counsel. According to us the appreciation of the documentary evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge was quite proper. The rate presently fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge as market value of the land under acquisition, in our view is not at all excessive. The action of the learned Subordinate Judge in doing away with the categerisation done by the LA Officer is also perfectly justified. Admittedly the entire property under acquisition belonged to the claimant. To categorise a portion of the property as property with road frontage and categorise the balance portion of the property L.A.A No.376 of 2002 4 without road frontage was an unrealistic and unjust approach. We approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having decided to award the uniform rate of the entire land which being enjoyed as a single holding. Having regard to the values reflected in the various documents referred to by the learned Sub Judge (which significantly were documents referred to by the Land Acquisition Authority also in his award). We feel that the rate of Rs.15,000/- per are comes to Rs.6,000/- per cent is not at all excessive. We do find some force in the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Railway that the the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards injurious affection. But on a perusal of the records we find that even if the correct method of determining compensation for injurious affection had been adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge, the learned Judge would have become obliged to award atleast something more than what is presently awarded. In view of that reason we are not inclined to interfere with the award of the learned Subordinate Judge towards compensation for the injurious affection. It will also been noticed in this context that the compensation for the injurious affection will not carry all the L.A.A No.376 of 2002 5 statutory benefits. The same will carry interest under Section 28 only. The other grounds raised do not appeal to us. The appeal preferred by the railway will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab