IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 2013 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.72/2001 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------- INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PARAMARA ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (NOW OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1/631/A, KANADIKADU AREA, MARADU P.O., KOCHI - 682 304. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND FIRST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- 1. UDAYABHANU, S/O.THANU NATHAN, PUTHIYADATHU KATTIL, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, MAVELIKKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANAKAPAN ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.2013 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the requisitioning authority and under challenge is the refixation of market value by the reference court from Rs.20316/- per Are to Rs.30,474/- per Are. Also under challenge is the award of sum of Rs.40,000/- towards additional value of improvements and the further award of total amount of Rs.85,327.20 towards compensation for injurious affection of the unacquired portion of the claimant's land calculated on the basis that the extent of diminution is 20%. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri. Rinny Stephen learned counsel for the claimant respondent. We have also heard the submissions of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader. 3. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the determination of land value at 50% L.A.A..No.2013/2008 2 over what was awarded by the land acquisition officer by the learned Subordinate Judge was justified on the evidence which is available on record. We feel that it is more or less the correct market value of the property at the relevant time which has been arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the redetermination of the market value of the land under acquisition. 4. As for the award of Rs.40,000/- towards additional value of improvements, which existed on the property such as the compound wall and retaining wall, we find that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is based on evidence including the report of the commissioner, who was assisted by an expert. We are not inclined to interfere with that award also. At the same time, we find some merits in the submission of Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel for the appellant, that award of compensation towards injurious affection of the remainder property by the learned Subordinate Judge was on the high side. Sri.Rinny Stephen, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that on account of the widening of the river, the value of the remainder property has become reduced considerably, L.A.A..No.2013/2008 3 according to him, by 60% of the current value. He argued that if the Advocate commissioner's report is relied on, there is justification for granting much more than what is now granted towards compensation for injurious affection. We were supplied with the copy of the advocate commissioner's report by Sri.Renny Stephen. Having gone through the commission report, what we find is that the report is only to the effect that on account of the widening of the river, there will be a risk to continued residence in the house which exists on the remainder property. We also feel that to a certain extent value of the remainder property which is the house site of the claimant will become reduced, but, according to us, not to the extent of 20% determined by the reference court. 5. Having taking into account all the relevant inputs, we feel that the percentage of diminution to be sustained by the value of the remainder property will not be more than 12.5%. To that extent we interfere with the impugned judgment. Thus the amount awarded towards compensation for injurious affection of the unacquired property is redetermined at Rs.53,329.5. In all other respects, the impugned judgment is L.A.A..No.2013/2008 4 confirmed. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk