IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 93 of 2010() ------------------------ LAR.16/2007 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- M.GANGADHARAN, S/O.PATTARAMBIL KARATTU NARAYANA MENON, 'KAILASAM', NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA(G), TIRUR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BUILDINGS CORPORATION OF KERALA, LTD, KOCHI. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN BY SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR ( SC) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, ALONG WITH L.A.A 94/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.Nos. 93 & 94 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the Land Acquisition Reference Court, Tirur contending that the compensation redetermined by that court is inadequate. The acquisitions in question were for the purpose of construction of Parappanangadi railway over bridge, block II. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent, which under the impugned judgment was refixed by the reference court to Rs.53,500/- on the basis of the evidence which came on record. 2. As these appeals came up for admission, Sri.M.Vijayakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the requisitioning authority has taken notice and we have heard the submissions of not only Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, but also Sri. M.Vijayakumar. We have also heard the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji. 3. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the LAA.Nos.93 & 94/2010 2 appellant to our own judgment in L.A.A. Nos. 580/2009 and 589/2009. We notice that those judgments were in respect of identical properties acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same Section 4 (1) notification. We notice that under those judgments market value of the lands were refixed at Rs.65,000/- per cent. We are of the view that those judgments are to be followed in these cases and the market value of the properties under acquisition refixed at Rs.65,000/- per cent. We do so. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of the acquisition in the present manner the remainder properties of the appellant have been reduced to useless bits. According to him, the remainder properties have been injuriously affected considerably and compensation is to be awarded for injurious affection of the remainder properties. 5. The above request is opposed by Sri.Vijayakumar and Sri.Basant Balaji. They point out that the claim for compensation for injurious affection has not been separately valued and claimed in the memorandum of appeals. We find merit in the above submission and decline the prayer for enhancement of compensation towards injurious affection. LAA.Nos.93 & 94/2010 3 6. The appeals are allowed to the extent of refixing land value at Rs.65,000/- only. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2) 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk