IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 391 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Vs
1. SHYLA BEEGUM,SUNITHA MANZIL,
... Respondent
2. AMEER HAMZA,SUNITHA MANZIL,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.R.MANOJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.391 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
We find much force in the submissions of
Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior
Government Pleader that the issue raised in this appeal
by the Government is covered in favour of the
Government by judgment of this Court in L.A.A.376/09.
According to her, if that judgment is followed, the
maximum value that can be granted is only Rs.98,000/-.
But as rightly argued by Sri.R.Manoj, the learned counsel
for the respondent the property under acquisition was
enjoying certain advantages which the property in
L.A.A.376/09 did not have. Taking into account those
advantages, we are inclined to re-fix the market value of
land under acquisition in this case at Rs.1 lakh per Are.
L. A. A. No.391 of 2009 -2-
We are not inclined to interfere with the award of
compensation for injurious affection or towards shifting
charges. However, it appears that the learned
Subordinate Judge has committed a mistake in reckoning
the compensation for injurious affection and shifting
charges also for the purpose of awarding statutory
benefit. It is clarified that the compensation for injurious
affection and the shifting charges will not carry statutory
benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and
under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The appeal will stand allowed, but in the
circumstances, without any order as to costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-