IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1761 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.102/2005 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. MARYKUTTY FRANCIS, W/O.FRANCIS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. 2. ROSE MARY, D/O.FRANCIS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. 3. ROSHAN FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. 4. RAHUL FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HUDCO, DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KALAMASSERY. ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R5 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. No. 1761 of 2008 A ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The government is in appeal. The case pertains to acquisition of land in Aluva West village within the area of Aluva Municipal Town. The purpose of the acquisition was Adhoc Augmentation to Kochi Water Supply Scheme. The relevant section 4(1) notification was published on 27-09-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.67,420/- per Are. The reference court, under the impugned judgment, refixed the land value at Rs.87,646/- per Are. Apart from doing so, the court below awarded compensation for injurious affection for the unacquired portion of the claimant's property extent to 12.40 Ares. The claimant respondent relied on the Advocate Commissioner's report to prove that the unacquired portion had been injuriously affected due to four reasons. The court below did not accept three of the four reasons stated by the Advocate Commissioner. But, the court below has accepted the Advocate LAA.1761/08 : 2 : Commissioner's report that the road frontage of the entire remained property has been lost and on that basis, fixed the percentage diminution at 25%. According to us, the court below, having found that three out of the four reasons stated by the Advocate Commissioner were not correct reasons, should not have accepted the Advocate Commissioner's report in full when it came to the question of loss of road frontage of the remainder property. The Commissioner himself has reported that the extent of area actually acquired is less than what is shown in the award. This indicates that the percentage of diminution on account of loss of road frontage will not come to the percentage recommended by the Advocate Commissioner. We are inclined to approve the land value fixed by the learned Sub Judge. But, we are of the view that the percentage of diminution fixed by the learned Sub Judge in respect of the unacquired property is excessive. In modification of the impugned judgment, we refix the percentage of diminution of the unacquired property at 15%. This means that for the unacquired property, the claimant will be entitled for compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.13,146/- per Are for 12.40 Ares only. It LAA.1761/08 : 3 : is also clarified that for the amount awarded towards compensation for injurious affection, the claimant will not be entitled for the statutory benefits due under Sections 23(2) and 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent only. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks