HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 in L.A.R.No.52/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. The extent of property acquired is 0.0247 hectares(6.1 cents) in re-survey No.137/12 Pt. of Chemnad Village. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value @ Rs.15,000/- per cent. The Reference Court enhanced and refixed the land value @ Rs.25,000/- per cent. The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. The husband of the claimant was examined as AW1 and produced Exhibit A1 sale deed. Exhibit X1 is the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Exhibit X2 is a plan attached to Exhibit X1 report. In Exhibit X1, the Commissioner reported that the acquired land is situated touching the State Highway. The Commissioner also reported that the basic land is situated 100 metres away from State Highway and that there is no proper approach road also. The court below found that the basic land is not similar and similarly situated as that of the acquired land.
3. The Commissioner also reported that the acquired land is situated very adjacent to the road margin of the Kasaragod- Kanhangad State Highway, that the property is situated about 1 KM distance from the Melparamba Town and within 5 Kms distance from Kasaragod Municipality. It is also reported that the acquired land is lying nearer to Bakel Tourism Project. Taking into account the importance of the locality wherein the property is situated and the potentiality of the land being lying near to Bakl Tourism Project, the Commissioner reported that the approximate market value of the land is 1.20 lakhs per cent. He has also noticed the fact that the property is lying in an important locality facing Kanhangad-Kasaragod State Highway.
4. We notice that the property is lying nearer to the Bakel Tourism Project. Considering the potentiality and the importance of the acquired land, we feel that the claimant is entitled to get at least Rs.60,000/- per cent.
5. The left out portion, after acquisition is only one cent. The claimant has claimed compensation for injurious affection on the ground that from out of the the total holding one cent was left out and the same cannot be used for any purpose. The Commissioner also reported that only one cent is the land remained with the claimant after acquisition and this strip of land is by the side of the road to be formed. The court below concluded that the balance portion cannot be conveniently enjoyed and the division has injuriously affected the rights of the claimant. The court below granted Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards injurious affection. In view of the enhancement granted towards land value, we feel that the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for injurious affection.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree under appeal is modified. The claimant is entitled to land value @ Rs.60,000/- per cent. The claimant is also entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards injurious affection. She is entitled to all eligible statutory benefits. In all other respects, the judgment and decree of the court below shall stand confirmed.
Sd/-
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE