IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 182 of 2004()
1. ELDHOSE K.V.,
... Petitioner
2. ANNAMMA VARGHESE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BABU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 182 of 2004
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The claimants are in appeal being not satisfied with the
compensation fixed by the reference court. In this appeal,
there is claim for enhancement in land value, for
compensation for injurious affection on account of severence
of the unacquired portion of the lands belonging to the
claimants and also towards value of improvements.
2. We shall deal with the question of land value first.
Reliance is placed mostly by the appellants on Ext.A5
document which reflected a land value of Rs.12,000/- per
Are. The court below did not place reliance on Ext. A5
taking the view that there is a distance of two kilometres
between the property covered by Ext.A5 and the acquired
property. In fact the court below did not place reliance on
any of the documents relied on by the claimants in support
LAR. 182/04
-2-
of their claim for enhancement in land value. Ultimately
what the court below did was to do guess work and re-fix
the land value at Rs.6000/- per Are. Having re-appreciated
the evidence pertaining to land value we feel that to a
certain extent Ext.A5 can be relied on and the value of the
land in that area at the relevant time can be re-fixed at
Rs.7500/- per Are. However, we are not inclined to award
land value to the appellants at that rate. We notice that the
property under acquisition is a fairly large extent.
Considering the largeness of the extent we become inclined
to deduct 10%. Thus we re-fix the value of land under
acquisition Rs.6750/- per Are. This means that the
appellant will have to be awarded at the rate of 750/- per
Are more than what is awarded by the reference court. It is
accordingly awarded.
3. We shall now deal with the question of
compensation, if any, for injurious affection. A reading of
the impugned judgment will show that the court below has
declined any compensation for injurious affection on the
LAR. 182/04
-3-
reason that precise details are not available as to what is
the total extent of the property retained by the appellants.
Ext.A4 gives some indication as to the balance extent
actually retained. The mahazar will also reveal that the
entire holding belonging to the appellant is not acquired.
We feel that on account of the construction of the safety
zone through middle of the remainder property of the
appellant, such remainder property has been injuriously
affected to a considerable extent. At the same time we are
not inclined to award compensation at the rates claimed in
the appeal. We feel that there is justification for awarding a
lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant as
compensation for injurious affection of the remainder
property.
4. The appellant has a claim for additional value of
improvements. Though it was a tall claim that was raised
before the reference court and the Advocate Commissioner
had recommended for awarding a further amount of more
than Rs.1,60,000/- as additional compensation for value of
LAR. 182/04
-4-
improvements, in the present appeal the above claim has
limited to Rs.50,000/-. Having made a reappraisal of the
evidence we feel that the appellant is entitled for atleast
Rs.20,000/- towards value of improvements. We award to
the appellant Rs.20,000/- as additional value of
improvements.
The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The
appellants will be entitled for a statutory benefits. But it is
made clear that for the amounts which are being awarded to
the appellants by this judgment towards severence
compensation, the appellants will not be entitled for
solatium under Section 23(2) and the additional amounts
under Section 23(1A). Appeal is allowed to the above
extent. However, parties will suffer their respective costs.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
(N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
ksv/-