IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 471 of 2004()
1. P.K.YATHEENDRA DAS, S/O.P.K.KRISHNAN
... Petitioner
2. P.K.PREMANATHAN, S/O.P.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY,
3. KAMALAKSHY, W/O.P.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY,
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA NH NO.1.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :14/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.471 of 2004
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimants are in appeal. The case
pertains to acquisition of land in Nellikode village
for the purpose of Calicut byepass. The
notification was published on 24/01/98. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation
of Rs.1,20,855/-. The Reference Court, however,
would re-fix the land value on the basis of the
evidence to Rs.45,000/-. The Reference Court
would award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
compensation for injurious affection finding that
about < cents of land was unauthorisedly affected
almost completely.
L. A. A. No.471 of 2004 -2-
2. In this appeal various grounds have been
raised and Sri.R.Sudhish, the learned counsel for
the appellants addressed us on the basis of
various grounds. All the submissions of
Sri.Sudhish were resisted by Smt.Latha T.
Thankappan, the learned senior Government
Pleader. We have considered the submissions. We
keep in mind our own judgment in LAA.1045/08
wherein we fixed the value of identical land which
was slightly superior at Rs.55,500/-. We are of the
view that on the basis of the judgment we have
passed in LAA.1045/08 there is justification for re-
fixing the value of land in this case also at
Rs.55,500/- . It is accordingly re-fixed. On the
basis of the above re-fixation, the appellants will
be eligible for award of a further amount of
Rs.5,000/- as additional compensation for
L. A. A. No.471 of 2004 -3-
injurious affection. Even though Sri.Sudhish
argued that additional compensation should be
awarded for building also, we are not inclined to
accept the above argument since there is nothing
on record which will show that any valuable
building existing on the property under
acquisition.
3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent
only. The appellants will be entitled for all
statutory benefits. The appellants will also be
entitled for proportionate interest.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-