IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 343 of 2005(A) ------------------------------- LAR.661/88 OF II ADDL. SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ------------- APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- DR.AHAMMED UMMAL SAHIDHA, C/O.DR.N.ASEEM, PLOT NO.130, A.K.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.(N.H) NO.III, KOVALAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.343 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is the appellant. Her property in Palkulangara village together with a commercial building having 4 rooms was acquired for the purpose of N.H. Bye- pass pursuant to notification published under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 06/01/79. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 6849/- per Are. For building a total compensation of ` 35430/- was granted. Before the Reference Court, the appellant had claimed for enhanced land value, enhanced building value and compensation for injurious affection of the un-acquired property extending to 3.5 cents. It was stated that the un- acquired property extending to 3.5 cents was having a width of just 4 metres and hence, unfit for any profitable use. The learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment re-fixed L. A. A. No.343 of 2005 -2- the land value at ` 25,000/- per Are. No compensation was awarded towards the building or towards injurious affection. 2. In this appeal grounds are raised challenging what is described as the inadequacy of the land value determined and the compensation for building as well as compensation towards injurious affection. However, a perusal of the valuation portion of the appeal shows that the appeal has been valued to the extent it relates to land value and value for the building. Hence, despite the merit noticed by us in the claim for compensation for injurious affection, we are unable to consider the said claim. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed before us by Smt.M.A.Zohra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned senior Government Pleader and having made a quick survey of the materials to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel, we feel that the market value fixed by the court below towards the land which was acquired is inadequate. We re-fix the market value of the land at ` 25,000/- per cent. L. A. A. No.343 of 2005 -3- Similarly, following the principle that construction of building in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition we award to the appellant ` 12,500/- more as compensation for the building. The appeal is allowed to the extent it pertains to land value and value of the building. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the re-fixed compensation. Claim for compensation for injurious affection is turned down. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE