VICTOR JOSEPH THARAKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are the appellants. Their property situated in Wadakkanchery village together with structures was acquired for the purpose of construction of railway over bridge at Wadakkanchery. The above acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 16/12/1995. The Land Acquisition Officer, relying on the basis document, fixed the land value at Rs.25,000/- per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied on Exts.A3 and A5 pre notification documents reflecting around Rs.1,50,000/- per cent as land value. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on Ext.A3 or A5 for the reason that a saw mill was functioning on the property under acquisition and that very near to the property under acquisition a tile factory was also functioning. The value of property under acquisition was not much as considerable pollution was generated by the saw mill as well as the tiles factory. Ultimately on guess estimate, the learned Subordinate Judge would refix the land value at Rs.35,000/- per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge became some what convinced that the remainder portion of the appellants' property extending to 37 cents was injuriously affected by the acquisition in the present manner. Towards compensation for injurious affection, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded Rs. 1 Lakh. Towards value of the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2,92,308/-. The Reference Court would refix the building value at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Rs.22,500/- was claimed towards shifting charges (charges incurred towards shifting the saw mill to the remainder property). The learned Subordinate Judge did not award any compensation towards shifting charges. No compensation was awarded towards claim for construction of new compound wall.

(2.) IN this appeal, the appellants claim land value at the refixed rate of Rs.50,000/- per cent, additional compensation for injurious affection at Rs.5,76,980/-, enhanced structure value to the tune of Rs.76,980/-, shifting charges to the tune of Rs.22,500/-, and Rs.45,000/- towards construction of compound wall.

(3.) DRAWING our attention to Exts.A3 and A5, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Ext.A3 are not at all sound. Exts. A3 and A5 documents were genuine documents and relying on those documents, there is every justification for refixing the value of the property under acquisition at least at the rates claimed in the appeal. The learned counsel would draw our attention to the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the injurious affection suffered by the unacquired property. The learned counsel argued that in the light of such findings there is every justification for allowing the appellants claim towards injurious affection in full. Similar submissions were made in the context of the claim for structure value and shifting charges and compound wall construction charges.