IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 677 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- LAR.281/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------- KUNJUMOHAMMED, AGED 56, S/O.LATE.AHAMMED CHAMPOKKADAVIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA.P.O., EDAPPALLY RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH (B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.677 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is the appellant. His property in Edappally North Village situated within the limits of Cochin Corporation was acquired for the purposes of the National Highway 17. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in Category-4 and awarded him land value at the rate of ` 1,07,220/- per Are. He had a further claim that his un- acquired property extending to 1 Acre and 19 cents was injuriously affected on account of the acquisition and the emergence of the over bridge. The Reference Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties would re-fix the land value at ` 1,56,200/- per Are. Thus, giving enhancement of 45% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Coming to the claim for compensation for injurious L. A. A. No.677 of 2008 -2- affection, the Reference Court which had jointly tried the appellant's case and the case of the appellant's sister in respect of the property which was lying adjacently found that the appellant's property was injuriously affected to a certain extent. However, the court awarded only ` 10,000/- as compensation for injurious affection. 3. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging the inadequacy of the land value and the compensation for injurious affection determined by the Reference Court. We have heard submissions of Sri.N.M.Mohamed Ayub, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.Ayub would draw our attention to various judgments of this Court by which this Court has re-fixed the value of lands in Edappally North Village acquired for the same purpose. It was pointed out that this Court has re-fixed the land value at 70% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. As regards compensation for injurious affection Sri.Ayub pointed out that in L.A.A.1130/08 filed by the appellant's L. A. A. No.677 of 2008 -3- sister against the impugned common award, this Court has awarded a total compensation of ` 86,019/- towards injurious affection for the appellant's sister. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant in this case has limited his claim to ` 50,000/- towards injurious affection. 4. All the submissions of Sri.Ayub were opposed by Sri.Shyamkumar. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. We take into account various judgments of this Court fixing the value of land in Edappally North Village acquired for the same purpose at the same time, pursuant to the same notification. We also take into account the decision taken by this Court in L.A.A.1130/08. We are of the view that there is every justification for re- fixing the value of the land under acquisition in this case at ` 1,82,274/-. This means that over and above the land value awarded by the Reference Court, the appellant is awarded ` 26,074/- per Are as land value. We are of the view that there is every justification for upholding the appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection in full. The appellant is L. A. A. No.677 of 2008 -4- awarded a further amount of ` 50,000/- as compensation for injurious affection for his un-acquired property. The enhanced land value which the appellant is getting by virtue of this judgment will carry statutory benefits under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act subject to the conditions imposed by us in the order in I.A.797/10. However, the amount which is being awarded to him towards injurious affection will carry only the benefits under Section 28. The appeal is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. The decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee of ` 12,980/- is remitted by the appellant. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. To Judge L. A. A. No.677 of 2008 -5-