IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1205 of 2003() ----------------------------------- LAR.35/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ---------------------- THE CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER, RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION, EGMORE, CHENNAI. (ADDL. RESPONDENT 2) BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS SRI.C.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, SR.PANEL COUNSEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. AJI KURIEN, S/O.KURIEN JOHN, ENGINEER, KOITHARA HOUSE, IRIMPANAM. 2. MARY KURIEN, W/O. KURIEN JOHN, HOUSEWIFE, KOITHARA HOUSE, IRIMPANAM. 3. DEEPA EVITENE, W/O.EVIGENE, HOUSEHOLD, KOITHARA HOUSE, IRIMPANAM. 4. SHEENA SABI, W/O.SABI, ENGINEER, KOITHARA HOUSE, IRIMPANAM. 5. TONY KURIEN, S/O.KURIEN JOHN, KOITHARA HOUSE, IRIMPANAM. (CLAIMANT & ADDL. CLAIMANTS 2 TO 6) 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. (1ST RESPONDENT) ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN FOR R1 TO 5 SRI.P.SURESH FOR R1 TO R5 R6 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2011 ALONG WITH LAA NOS.1206/2003 & 1207/2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LA.App..No. 1205 of 2003 ORDER IN I.A.No.1252/2003 IN L.A.A.No.1205/2003 Dismissed. ORDER IN I.A.No.641/2005 IN L.A.A.No.1205/2003 Dismissed. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. 18.2.2011. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. Nos.1205, 1206 & 1207 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The Requisitioning Authority, Southern Railway is the appellant in all these appeals. Land in Elamkulam Village was acquired at the instance of the Requisitioning Authority pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24.5.1997. The L.A.Officer included a portion of property in wet land category and the balance portion in reclaimed wet land category. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the entire property is included under the category of reclaimed wet land. The L.A.officer awarded different rates of Rs.1,71,170/- per Are and Rs.1,62,110/- per Are for the properties (reclaimed wet land and wet land respectively). The L.A.Court under the L.A.A. Nos.1205, 1206 & 1207 of 2003 -: 2 :- impugned judgment has refixed the land value uniformly at Rs.2,00,275/- Per Are. The claimants in L.A.R.No.35/2000 and L.A.R.No.36/2000 corresponding to L.A.A.Nos. 1205/2003 and 1207/2003 had claimed compensation for injurious affection on their remainder properties. For this they relied mostly on Ext.A2, the Commissioner's Report. In Ext.A2 the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by the Civil Court has reported that due to the acquisition the entire remainder properties of the claimants in these two cases will be reduced to worthless bits. It is not disputed that the extents of remainder properties belonging to those claimants are more than 10 cents. The learned Sub Judge did find that there was some injurious affection to the remainder properties but the court below did not award compensation claimed by the claimants for the reason that the claimants had not taken out a commission from the L.A.Court. Ultimately what the court below did was to award a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the L.A.A. Nos.1205, 1206 & 1207 of 2003 -: 3 :- claimants in L.A.R.Nos.35/2000 and 36/2000. We were taken through Ext.A2 Commissioner's Report by Advocate Sri.P.Suresh, the learned counsel for the claimants. The rough sketch submitted by the Commissioner will also show that the remainder properties in these cases are fairly extensive. What we notice that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Reference Court in those two cases come to the market value of less than 11/2 cents. According to us, the compensation awarded by the learned Sub Judge at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- in those two cases is by no standard excessive. 2. We shall now deal with the question of market value of the lands. Going through the impugned award, we find that the market value entered by the learned Sub Judge was on the basis of evidence on record. The property was situated on the southern end of Panampilly Nagar. Having regard to the value of land in that area, we are sure that the value presently awarded is not unreasonable. We do not L.A.A. Nos.1205, 1206 & 1207 of 2003 -: 4 :- find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Sub Judge. All these appeals are dismissed however no any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt