IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 75 of 2009()
1. SASIDHARAN NAIR
... Petitioner
2. SOBHA SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, KOTTARAKARA
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :21/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.75 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimant is in appeal. His property in Kulanada
village together with structures (compound wall, gate and
water tank) was acquired for the purpose of expansion of
the Kottarakkara – Adoor limb of the M.C. Road. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of
Rs.54,476/- per Are. He awarded structure value of
Rs.18,608/-. In this appeal, there is claim for enhanced land
value, enhanced structure value and also for injurious
affection. But as regards claim for injurious affection what
we notice is that those claims are in respect of injuries
sustained by the appellants as a result of the road
construction work undertaken long after the award was
L. A. A. No.75 of 2009 -2-
passed. We feel that the claim for injurious affection on the
basis of road construction undertaken much after the award
will constitute at best a separate cause of action. If the
appellants have grievance, it is for the appellants to initiate
original proceedings for recovery of compensation regarding
that aspect. Coming to the question of land value, we find
that Ext.A2 was the only document available. The court
below rightly found that the acquired property was superior
to Ext.A2 property and gave to the appellant value higher
than the value reflected in Ext.A2 i.e. as against
Rs.1,50,000/- per Are reflected in Ext.A2, the appellant was
given Rs.2 lakhs per Are. But as regards the structure value,
no enhancement was granted. Having considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and
those of the learned Government Pleader, we feel that on a
more correct assessment of the evidence, there is
justification for re-fixing the value of lands under acquisition
L. A. A. No.75 of 2009 -3-
at Rs.2,10,000/- per Are. Thus, awarding to the appellants
Rs.10,000/- per Are more than what is awarded under the
impugned judgment, we do so. Same way in the case of
structure value also according to us, there is justification for
awarding a further amount of Rs.7,400/- to the appellants.
We award that amount also. The appeal is allowed to the
above extent only. The appellants will be entitled for all
statutory benefits also.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-