KRISHNA KURUP JANARDHANA KURUP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of this appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant is the claim for compensation for injurious affection of his un-acquired property. A total extent of 8.95 Ares was acquired from the possession of the appellant. THE Reference Court fixed the value of land at Rs.10,000/- per Are and the appellant has no grievance about such fixation. His grievance is that 28.43 Ares situated on the western side of the canal which has been constructed by utilising the land acquired from his possession has become completely deprived of road frontage and the value of that land has become diminished considerably. Before the Reference Court, reliance was placed on Exts.C1 to C3 commission report, mahazar and plan. A reading of Exts.C1 to C3 will show that it is clearly reported by the Commissioner that about 28.43 Ares of land situated on the western side of the newly constructed canal had been deprived of road frontage completely. We are also convinced that the aforesaid extent of 28.43 Ares has been affected injuriously by the acquisition in this case at least to some extent. THE court below did not award any compensation for injurious affection on the reason that the appellant did not produce document No.903 dated 26/03/113 M.E. of the Noornadu Sub Registry, the partition deed under which the property is claimed by him. A reading of the notes to award will show that the acquired property and the above un-acquired property (28.43 Ares) was alloted jointly to one Parvathy Amma and her daughter Gouri Amma. THE appellant, Janardhana Kurup is the son of Smt.Gouri Amma. THE court below insisted on production of the partition deed or any other document of title in respect of the un-acquired property as the court felt that it was probable that there were other persons who were interested in the aforesaid extent of 28.43 Ares. We also feel that it is probable that there are persons other than the appellant who are interested in the aforesaid extent of 28.43 Ares which has been injuriously affected due to the acquisition. According to us, the court below was justified in insisting on production of documents which will show that as to what is the interest which the appellant is having over the aforesaid extent of 28.43 Ares.

(2.) COMING to the question of the compensation to be awarded for injurious affection, we will only observe that the above property extending to 28.43 Ares has been affected at least to the extent of 10%. We do not propose to decide the extent of diminution finally in this appeal. We relegate that issue to be decided afresh by the court below.