IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 1265 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.91/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)CLAIMANT: -------------- N.I.GEORGE, S/O.ITHAPID PATHROSE, NEDUMPAKUDA HOUSE, RANDOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686673. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1265 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and he is aggrieved by what he described as an inadequate compensation refixed by the Land Acquisition Reference Court. The acquisition was of property in Kureekkad Village for the purpose of doubling of the railway track. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 18/12/2003 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.23704/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment has refixed the land value at Rs.58,968/- per Are. Several grounds are raised impugning the judgment of the reference court. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.E.D.George, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority (Railways). We have heard the submissions of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader also. It was Ext.A1 judgment of the LAA.No.1265/2008 2 same court in L.A.R. No.71/1996 series, which was put in evidence by the appellant/ claimant in support of his claim for enhanced land value. It is seen that under Ext.A1, which pertains to several land acquisition cases in which the Land Acquisition Officer had granted the same rate of land value, the reference court had refixed the land value at varying rates based on the nearness to the Kureekkad junction, which is the most important junction in that area. In L.A.R.No.96/1996 covered by Ext.A1 judgment, the court had granted 73,710/- per Are. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment did notice that Ext.A1 judgment had some relevance. At the same time, the court below took the view that the value awarded under Ext.A1 cannot be awarded to the acquired property, since the acquired property was away from the Kureekkad junction. 3. Having made a reappraisal of the evidence, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was, to a certain extent, justified in not awarding the higher values awarded under Ext.A1, since the categorisation and rates adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer are not binding on the court. The learned Sub Judge was a little miserly in the matter of fixation of the market LAA.No.1265/2008 3 value on a better assessment based on Ext.A1 itself. The market value of the land under acquisition could be refixed at Rs.69,000/- per Are. We accordingly, set aside the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and refix the value of the property under acquisition at Rs.69,000/-. 4. The claim which is next highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is the appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection of the remainder property. It is seen that this claim is supported by the evidence on record which consisted of Ext.C1 commission report and C1(a) sketch. In fact, the learned Sub Judge herself notices that remainder property has been injuriously affected. But, according to her, despite some injurious affection, it would be possible for the appellant to construct residential house on the remainder property. We feel that the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was pedantic. It is clear to our mind that the value of the remainder property has been injuriously affected atleast to the extent of 25 %. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for 25% compensation for injurious affection at the rate of Rs.5969/- per cent for his unacquired portion of the LAA.No.1265/2008 4 property extending to 5.31 cents. This means that the appellant will become entitled for total amount of Rs.31695/- which we round off to Rs.32,000/-. We are, therefore, awarding a further amount of Rs.22,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection over and above what is awarded by the reference court. 5. Yet another claim raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below ought to have awarded further compensation for the compound wall which existed on the acquired property. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.9,000/- towards compensation for acquisition of compound wall obviously adopting PWD schedule of rates. It is well known that construction of building in the PWD schedule of rates is not a practical proposition and that even PWD tenders out its work at 20% or 30% above its own schedule of rates. We feel that enhancement of 25% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. a sum of Rs. 2250/- more can be awarded to the appellant towards compensation for acquisition of compound wall. We award that amount also. The appeal will stand allowed the above extent. It is made LAA.No.1265/2008 5 clear that appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under law on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of our refixation done under this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk