The High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal, directing the State to pay the appellant Rs. 50,000 as compensation for injurious affection arising from the acquisition of his property and the rise of a bridge.
Awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection under clause fourthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/16TH PHALGUNA 1933
LA.App..No. 867 of 2002 ( )
LAR.69/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT / A - CLAIMANT :
EZHAVA SAMAJAM, PARAVOOTHARA MURI, NORTH PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.V. GOPAN
BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.ASWAS SRI.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAM KUMAR
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
=====================
L.A.A. NO. 867 OF 2002
=====================
Dated this the 6th day of March 2012
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
The claimant is the appellant. The only grievance that he has voiced is that the Land Acquisition Reference Court did not award him compensation under clause fourthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, on account of the acquisition of the land and the emergence of the new bridge at a height of 22 feet from the road level is remainder property which was otherwise enjoying direct road frontage( lying on a level with the road) is not easily accessible. He relies on Ext.C1 commissioner’s report. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned award has declined any compensation under clause fourthly of Section 23 for the reason that the Advocate Commissioner has not given details of the extent actually under the ownership and
L.A.A. 867/2002
2
possession of the appellant after the acquisition.
the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.C.R.Syam Kumar and having made a reappraisal of the evidence on record especially the commissioner’s report, we are of the view that there is some truth in the case of the appellant that on account of the acquisition of the property in the present manner and more particularly because of the emergence of the new bridge, the value of his unacquired property has been reduced. We are sure that the appellant is eligible for a total amount of Rs.50,000/- for the unacquired property under clause fourthly of Section 23.
We allow this appeal and award to the appellant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection under clause fourthly of Section 23 of the Act. The appellant will get proportionate cost . The appellant has a complaint that the learned Subordinate Judge has not awarded him the eligible statutory benefits under Section 28
L.A.A. 867/2002
3
on the entire compensation. We only observe that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in [ Sundar v. Union of India[2001(3)K.L.T.489]. However as already clarified, the amount awarded under this judgment for injurious affection will carry only the benefit under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,
JUDGE
ks.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for injurious affection under clause fourthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act due to the emergence of a new bridge.
Whether the award made under this judgment for injurious affection attracts the benefits of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sundar v. Union of IndiaExplained¶30
Sundar v. Union of India[2001(3)K.L.T.489]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ezhava Samajam, Paravoothara Muri
State of Kerala
Pius C.Kuriakose
A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
