High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 08 KL CK 0216

George Mathew, Uthalakuzhiyil, Mangaram, Konni and Others vs State of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pius C. Kuriakose, J · A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
L.A. A No. 662 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 377 words

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimants are the appellants. Their property in Pramadom village of Pathanamthitta Thaluk was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 17/10/81 for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project. This appeal is confined to the appellants'' claim for compensation for injurious affection in respect of 17.60 Ares of land which remained under the ownership of the appellants after the acquisition. The appellant places reliance on Ext.C1 Commission Report and Ext.C3 plan prepared by court surveyor. In Ext.C1 it has been clearly reported that on account of the acquisition in the present fashion the appellants'' property has been divided into two pieces and that the eastern piece extending to 17.60 Ares cannot be easily accessed because of the Kanal constructed in between. It is also reported that the value of that portion has been reduced considerably. Exts.C3 supports the above report. The learned Subordinate Judge also virtually found that the above portion of 17.60 Ares has been injuriously affected at least to a certain extent. The learned Subordinate Judge however disallowed any compensation for severance for the reason that the appellant has not produced any document which will show that the appellant is having title over the above 17.60 Ares. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge''s approach was pedantic. The Government did not file any objection before the Reference Court to the effect that 17.60 Ares situated on the eastern side of the Kanal does not belong to the appellants. In fact Exts.C1 to C3 have been prepared on the basis of the inspection conducted by a Commissioner and court surveyor with notice to the Government. We feel that there is justification for awarding compensation to the appellant towards injurious affection of the un-acquired property extending to 17.60 Ares. However, as the extent involved is fairly large we are not inclined to award compensation for injurious affection on centage basis. We award only a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards injurious affection of the un-acquired property. The amount so awarded will carry statutory benefits u/s 28 only. It will not carry the benefit under Sections 23(2), 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.