K.O. Mathew vs State Of Kerala

Johnson John, J .

The claimant filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.03.2016 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla in L.A.R. No.80 of 2012. An extent of 8 Ares of property out of the total extent of 13.15 Ares of property owned by the claimant was acquired for doubling of railway line from Chengannur to Chingavanam pursuant to a notification dated 18.07.2019 in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Land Acquisition Officer classified the acquired lands into six different categories for the purpose of acquisition, of which category I are dry lands having access from PWD road and Municipal road in main residential area; category II are dry lands having access from Municipal road and Railway mud road in main residential area; category III are dry lands having access only through Railway puramboke or pathway but nearby to town area, and reclaimed land near town; category IV are dry lands having access from road, but situated away from town and in less developed area; and category V are reclaimed lands having access from railway puramboke or pathway situated away from town and in less developed area. The note to award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer in connection with the acquisition reveals that for the purpose of fixing the land value of the lands brought under Categories I, II and III, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into account the land value shown in Sale Deed No.1492/2008 of SRO, Thiruvalla dated 12.05.2008 and for the purpose of fixing the land value of the lands brought under Categories IV and V, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into account the land value shown in Sale Deed No.1724/2008 of SRO, Thiruvalla. The note to award also reveals that the Land Acquisition Officer has made a comparison between the lands covered by the basis document and the acquired lands brought under Categories I, II and III and fixed the land value for the lands brought under Category I at Rs.1,17,072/- per Are which is 20% above the land value shown in the basis document, Category II at Rs.1,05,364/- per Are which is 10% above the land value shown in the basis document and Category III at Rs.78,048/- per Are which is 20% below the land value shown in the basis document. As far as the lands brought under Categories IV and V are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer, after comparing the same with the land covered by the basis document, fixed the land value for the lands brought under Category IV at Rs.85,561/- per Are and fixed the land value for the lands brought under Category V at Rs.74,866/- per Are.

The acquired land was brought under category IV and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.85,561/- per Are. As per the impugned award, the Reference Court enhanced the land value to Rs. 4,93,000/- per Are. The appellant is challenging the judgment passed by the reference court so far as it has not granted any compensation towards appellant’s claim for severance and injurious affection. It is stated that after the acquisition, the remaining property has been reduced to 5.15 Ares and lies within the limit of 30 metres from the railway line, where no construction or any other activities are permitted. It is stated that the remaining property of the appellant suffers loss of extent of width and now it is a narrow strip and the reference court failed to consider the commission report and the evidence on the side of the appellant in this regard.

Head the learned counsel for the parties on either side.

At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that this Court, as per the common judgment dated 05.12.2023 in L.A.A. No.83 of 2016 and connected cases, where the property was acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, fixed the land value of the property coming under category IV at Rs. 4,55,058/-. and if the same yardstick is applied in this case, it will be necessary to scale down the land value fixed in the impugned judgment. But, in the absence of any appeal from the side of State or the claimant challenging the land value fixed by the reference court, we are not interfering with the same.

The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Exhibit C1 commission report and pointed out that the Commissioner has specifically reported that the remaining property of the claimant suffered loss of width and because of its irregular shape, there is considerable reduction in its market value and we find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference court has failed to consider this aspect.

In Sivarama Pillai Purushothaman Nair v. State of Kerala and others [2012 (2) KHC 631], a Division Bench of this Court has held thus:

“Essentially clause fourthly of S.23(1) enables the Reference Court to award compensation to the owner of the acquired property for the damages sustained by him on account of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property whether it be movable or immovable, in any other manner which means, any manner other than mere severance. The unacquired property if it is immovable need not be a part of the land which was acquired. Loss of road frontage to the unacquired property, loss of access including easement of way, loss of more convenient access, deprivation of other easements, loss of water sources like well, pond etc. on account of the acquisition will be instances covered by clause fourthly.”

There is no serious dispute that after the acquisition of 8 Ares of property, out of the total extent 13.15 Ares, the remaining 5.15 Ares of property has become a narrow strip in a rectangular shape. it is also brought to our notice that the said narrow strip lies within the limit of 30 metres from the railway line, where no construction or any other activities are permitted. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances we find that 20% of the land value of the remaining property can be fixed as compensation for injurious affection. The extent of the land acquired is 8 Ares out of the total extent of 13.15 Ares and therefore, the remaining property is having an extent of 5.15 Ares and therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,07,790/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety only) as compensation for injurious affection.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed a compensation of Rs.Rs.5,07,790/- for injurious affection. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, are closed.