IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 636 of 2006(D)
1. K.C.LAKSHMI AMMA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN
... Petitioner
2. K.C.VANAJA, AGED 53 YEARS,
3. K.C.ANANDAVALLI, AGED 45 YEARS,
4. K.V.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
5. K.C.VIMALAKUMARI, AGED 38 YEARS,
6. K.C.KOMALAVALLI, AGED 36,D/O. LATE
Vs
1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, (NH),
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :18/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.Nos.586 & 636 of 2006
------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Heard Sri.P.M.Pareeth, learned counsel for the petitioners
in L.A.A.636/2006, Sri.Mathews K.Philip, learned counsel for the
petitioner in L.A.A.586/2006 and Sri.P.K.Babu, the learned
Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. L.A.A. No.636/2006 is filed by the claimant and L.A.A
No.586/2006 is filed by the BSNL, the requisitioning authority.
The acquisition was in Munderi Village in Kannur District and the
purpose of the acquisition was the construction of telephone
exchange for BSNL. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was
published on 14/9/2000. The awarding officer granted land
value at the rate of Rs.4,042/- per cent. The evidence before the
reference court consisted mainly of Ext.A2 document dated
11/12/1996, the oral testimony of AW1 to AW4 on the side of
the claimants, Ext.X1 commission report, Ext.X1(a) plan
submitted by the commissioner and RW-1 an officer attached to
L.A.A..No.586/2006 & another 2
the Land Acquisition Authority. Ext.A2 revealed land value of
Rs.29,000/- per cent. Apart from the claim for land value, the
claimants had a claim for compensation towards injurious
affection of their reminder properties. The report of the
commissioner, to a certain extent, supported the above claim.
However, the learned Subordinate Judge did not award any
amount towards compensation for injurious affection of the
remainder properties of the claimants. The learned Sub Judge
did not rely on Ext.A2 document. On the contrary, what the
learned Judge did was to notice the value revealed in Ext.A2, the
commissioner’s report recommending for award of compensation
towards injurious affection and to fix Rs.50000/- per cent as
market value of the property. According to us, approach of the
learned Sub Judge was not proper. The learned Judge ought to
have fixed the market value of the property and thereafter fixed
the percentage of diminution affected of the remainder
properties of the claimants and quantify the amount to be
awarded towards diminution of the land value separately and
award separate amounts on that count.
3. We are informed that the total compensation payable
L.A.A..No.586/2006 & another 3
under the impugned decree has now been paid to the claimants.
We are of the view that the matter is liable to be remanded to
the reference court, so that the reference court can refix the
market value of the acquired property, the percentage of
diminution suffered by the remainder properties of the
claimants and then quantify the total amount to be paid to the
claimant towards injurious affection of the remainder properties.
4. The result is that, the impugned judgment and decree
are set aside. The L.A.R. is remitted to the reference court.
The reference court will afford an opportunity to both sides to
adduce whatever further evidence they want to regarding the
market value of the property and also regarding the percentage
of diminution sustained by the remaining property and will pass
revised judgment in the light of the observation contained herein
above. The revised judgment , as directed above, shall be
delivered by the learned Subordinate Judge within four months of
receiving a copy of this judgment.
5. It is made clear that payment made to the claimants on
the strength of the judgment and decree, which is now set aside,
will be subject to the revised judgment and decree to be passed
L.A.A..No.586/2006 & another 4
by the learned Judge. The parties will appear before the court
below on 21/5/2009 the date on which the court reopens after
summer holidays.
Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memoranda to the
counsel for the appellants in both cases.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
dpk