Judgment :- 1. An extent of 3.470 cents equivalent to 1.33 ares, out of 33.872 cents of land owned by the respondent, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of South Over bridge, Ernakulam, in pursuance of a notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Laud Acquisition Act dated 21st February 1967. The respondent had before the Land Acquisition Officer claimed compensation under various heads. However, we are, in this appeal, concerned only with claims under three heads viz. (1) land value; (2) value for the buildings and compound walls; and (3) compensation for injurious affection. 2. The claim before the Land Acquisition Officer by the respondent in respect of land value was at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs 5,500 per are which would be equivalent to Rs. 2,200 per cent. On reference, this compensation has been raised to Rs. 3,000 per cent as against the claim for Rs. 3,500 per cent before that court. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the enhancement was unwarranted, and it was legally wrong to have placed reliance on the award made in another case for fixing the land value in the present case. Various items of property were acquired for the same purpose, and in the previous reference cases, for the sake of convenience, in regard to fixation of market value, a division was made between the land acquired, lying to the east of the Railway-line, on the one hand, and that lying on the western side of the Railway-line on the other, Compensation was fixed at Rs. 3 000 for the land lying to the east of the Railway-line, and Rs. 5,000 per cent in respect of the land lying to the west of the Railway-line. In view of the importance and potential value of the land concerned, and in view of the reasonable and rational basis on which the general classification of the lands lying to the east and the lands lying to the west of the Railway-line has been made by the court for the purpose of fixation of market value of lands in the connected cases of reference, previously decided; we do not think that there is any justification for interference with the decision of the court below in so far as it relates to the enhancement of the land value, from Rs. 2,200 to Rs. 3,000 per cent, to which rate the respondent in his oral evidence as PW 5 had restricted his claim for land value in view of the rate in regard to land value adopted by the court in references of connected cases, decided earlier. 3. We now turn to the claim for enhancement of value for the building and the compound wall allowed by the reference court to which objection has been taken by the State. A sum of Rs. 39,900 in all was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the basis of the Reports Exts. C-1 and C-2 filed by the Commissioner, PW. 7, the value of the buildings and the compound wall has been raised to Rs. 52,578.38 by the reference court. Ext. D-2 is the valuation statement prepared by RW. 1, the Junior Engineer, in respect of the buildings and the compound wall, and it has been verified by RW. 2, the Assistant Engineer, and countersigned by RW. 3 the Executive Engineer. For determining the quantum of material and labour used for the construction of the building and the compound wall, the Commissioner PW. 7, also accepted and relied on the date disclosed by Ext. D-2 valuation statement. The valuation by the Commissioner, in Ext C-2 Report, nevertheless came to Rs 52,578.38 marking an enhancement by Rs. 12,678.38 over the value fixed by RWs.1 and 2 in Ext D 2 statement, accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer as a result of the Commissioner departing from the criterion adopted by RWs.1 and 2 on two points: (1) cost of labour, and (2) rate of depreciation. RWs.1 and 2 had, for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of construction of the buildings and compound wall, adopted the PWD. schedule rate of wages for the District of Ernakulam. The Commissioner found that the wage level in the city of Ernakulam is definitely higher than that of the rural area in the District, and therefore the PWD. wage schedule for the Ernakulam District would not reflect the true rate of labour charges in the Ernakulam city, in which the building valued by him was situated. Bearing this aspect in mind the Commissioner adopted a rate which according to him reflected the correct rate in Ernakulam city, for the purpose of fixing the cost of labour incurred. wage schedule for the Ernakulam District would not reflect the true rate of labour charges in the Ernakulam city, in which the building valued by him was situated. Bearing this aspect in mind the Commissioner adopted a rate which according to him reflected the correct rate in Ernakulam city, for the purpose of fixing the cost of labour incurred. As for the depreciation, RWs.1 and 2 had allowed it at 2 per cent per annum, which the Commissioner found to be excessive and fixed it at 1 per cent per annum, and in view of the decision in Mytheen Kunju Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State 1954 KLT. 798 the reference court came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the valuation given by the Commissioner should not be preferred to that of RWs.1 and 2. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in regard to cost of labour and depreciation the court below was justified in adopting the rate found in the Commissioner's Report in preference to the rate allowed by RWs.1 and 2 and this would mean that there is no scops for interference by us with the decision of the reference court in so far as it relates to the award of compensation decreed by that court to the buildings and compound wall. 4. We now come to the last, and the most keenly contested point raised by the Government Pleader. According to the Government Pleader, the court below was not justified in decreeing any amount by way of compensation for injurious affection. The acquisition, was, as we notice from the notification under S.3 (1) of the Act, for the South Over bridge, Ernakulam. The evidence would go to show that it would be more correct to say that it was for the purpose of the approach road for the South Over bridge, than to say that it was for the over bridge itself. The total extent of the property in the hands of the respondent was 33.872 cents; and the land acquired from him was 3.470 cents, thus leaving an extent of 30.402 cents in the hands of the respondent. The total extent of the property in the hands of the respondent was 33.872 cents; and the land acquired from him was 3.470 cents, thus leaving an extent of 30.402 cents in the hands of the respondent. The respondent's case is that there has been a diminution in respect of the value of the land left in his hands, inasmuch as a direct result of the acquisition, the land remaining in his hands has been deprived of the advantages of having frontage of a main road, reducing substantially its potential value as a commercial or industrial site. A sum of Rs. 24,000 has been claimed by way of compensation on this count by the respondent; and what the court below has allowed is the sum of Rs. 7,500. The court below found on the evidence of pw. 5 (the respondent), pw. 6, (a valuer of property for the purpose of taxation under the Estate Duty Act), and pw 7 (the Commissioner) that the acquisition of the part of the property has resulted in depriving the main road frontage, to the remaining property and the view of the site has been blocked by the embankment of the approach road to the bridge. The Commissioner, pw. 7, had assessed the diminution in value of the remaining land at Rs. 750 per cent. The court below took the view that though an extent of 30 odd cents remains without being acquired, diminution in value, as a direct result of the acquisition of only a portion of the respondent's property, could reasonably be attributed only to an extent of 10 cents of land, the belt that lies adjacent to the acquired portion, as the remaining extent might have utility, normally speaking, for residential purpose alone, and its potential for such utility has not been materially affected by the acquisition in question. 5. The learned Government Pleader argued that as far as the deprival of the road frontage was concerned, the acquired land, having been almost fully utilised for the purpose of constructing a road just in front or the property remaining unacquired, it could not be said that there is a diminution of value on that account in respect of the property remaining unacquired. We are afraid that it is not quite correct to say that practically the entire extent of the land acquired from the respondent has been utilised for the construction of the road, which in effect, as described by the Commissioner, is only a by lane, as per Ext. D-3 statement, the width of the land acquired from the respondent is 7.8 metres in the west and 7.11 metres in the east. The by lane constructed is just 13.6 ft. To have a frontage of a by lane that runs parallel to the approach road which, on the eastern side of the over bridge lies at a standing height ranging from 7.8 ft. and 11.8 ft. from the by lane, cannot be considered to be equal in advantage to the frontage of the main road, which the property originally had. In fact, if we may say so, the immediate direct result of the acquisition has been deprival of road frontage to the remaining property altogether inasmuch as till a by lane has subsequently been constructed, what formed the boundary of the unacquired portion of the property, was the portion of the property acquired from the respondent. The finding of the court below on the basis of Exts. C-1 and C-2 reports and the evidence of pws. 5, 6 and 7 is that when a vehicle proceeds from west to east in order to get into the by lane that now lies in front of the unacquired portion of the property, it has to take a sharp turn (3600) and that it is not only results in inconvenience and loss of time but might also create occasions for accidents. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the court below went wrong in concluding that there has been a diminution of the value of the property remaining unacquired in the hands of the respondent on account of the acquisition of a portion of the property which belonged to him. 6. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the court below went wrong in concluding that there has been a diminution of the value of the property remaining unacquired in the hands of the respondent on account of the acquisition of a portion of the property which belonged to him. 6. Another line of reasoning by the learned Government Pleader is that in any event on account of the subsequent use of the acquired land for constructing the approach road made by the Government, the respondent cannot claim compensation stating that such subsequent use has resulted in the reduction of amenities or utility, and consequent diminution of potential value in respect of the land left without being acquired. A question was posed as to whether, in case the property on which the approach road was made belonged to some other person, the respondent would have been within his rights to claim compensation on the ground of injurious affection from the Government under the Land Acquisition Act We are of the view that where the very purpose of the acquisition is stated to be for the purpose of an over bridge, or approach road leading to the over bridge, and the very same property which has been acquired from the respondent has been made use of for that purpose, it would be within the right of the respondent to claim compensation on account of the anticipatory diminution in value of the remaining land in the hands of the respondent. In this connection, reference could be made to the decision in In re The Stock-port Timperley and Altringham Railway Company, Law Journal Reports, Vol. XXXIII, page 251. The facts of the case were as follows. A railway Company took some land of L. under their Act, and proposed to make their railway on it so close to a cotton-mill belonging to L, that by reason of the proximity of the railway and the danger of fire from the trains using the line, the building was less suitable for a cotton-mill, could only be insured at an increased premium, and was rendered of less saleable value. Dealing with the contention with respect to right to claim compensation in that case what has been observed by the court of Queen's Bench, is as follows: "But the question here is, whether such rule is at all applicable to cases where part of the land is taken and compensation is given, not only for the value of the part taken, but for the rest of the land being injuriously affected, either by severance or otherwise; and I am of opinion that the distinction pointed out by Mr Manisty is correct, and that the rule in question does not apply to such cases Where the damage is occasioned by what is done upon other land which the company have purchased, and such damage would not have been actionable as against the original proprietor as in the case of the sinking of a well and causing the abstraction of water by percolation, the company have a right to say We had done what we had a right to do as proprietors, and do not require the protection of any act of parliament; we therefore, have not injured you by virtue of the provisions of the Act; no cause of action has been taken away from you by the act Where, however, the mischief is caused by what is done on the land taken, the party seeking compensation has a right to say, it is by the act of parliament, and the act of parliament only that you have done the acts which have caused the damage; without the act of parliament, everything you have done, and are about to do, in the making and using the railway, would have been illegal and actionable, and is therefore, matter for compensation according to the rule in question". Another decision that throws some light on the disputed point of law is the one reported in Thomas Christopher Cowper Essex v. The Local Board for the District of Action in the county of Middlesex 1889 Law Reports (Appeal Cases) Vol. XIV Page 153. Under statutory powers incorporating the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 the respondents gave the appellant notice to treat for the purchase of part of his land, which they required for sewage works. XIV Page 153. Under statutory powers incorporating the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 the respondents gave the appellant notice to treat for the purchase of part of his land, which they required for sewage works. In an inquisition held under that Act evidence was given that the existence of sewage works, even if conducted so as not to create an actionable nuisance, depreciated the market value of the appellants's other lands for building purposes. The land taken was let on long building leases; of the other lands part was in hand, and part was let for short periods for brick making. The land taken was separated from the other lands, in part by other property of the appellants and in part by a railway. The jury gave a verdict for the value of the land taken and a further sum for all damage sustained or to be sustained by reason of injuriously affecting the other lands by the exercise of the respondents' statutory powers The court held as follows: "the jury had not exceeded their jurisdiction in awarding the further sum. For, first, part of the appellant's land having been taken for the sewage works, compensation might be awarded for damage to be sustained by reason of the injuriously affecting his other lands' not only by the construction of the sewage works but by their use. Secondly, the damage was not too remote to form the subject of compensation, even though no nuisance might be caused; thirdly, the lands taken and the lands injuriously affected being held by the same owner so that the unity of ownership conduced to the advantage of the property as one holding, the lands injuriously affected were "held with" the lands taken within the meaning of S.49 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845". The rulings in Collector of Jabalpur and another v. Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahagir Khan AIR. 1971 M. P. 32, Smt. Rajeswara Poddar v. Sub Collector of Berhampur AIR 1964 Orissa 12, Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare, Kumbakonam Land Acquisition Collector v. S. Vaidyanatha Ayyar AIR. 1958 Madras 214 were also cited by the counsel for the respondent to highlight the legitimate nature of the claim for compensation for injurious affection caused by the acquisition of the part of the land held by the respondent. 1958 Madras 214 were also cited by the counsel for the respondent to highlight the legitimate nature of the claim for compensation for injurious affection caused by the acquisition of the part of the land held by the respondent. It is not necessary to deal with those decisions in great detail as on a reading of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of S.25 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, and on a consideration of the facts and circum¬stanc-s of the case, we are satisfied that the acquisition of a portion of the land held by the respondent has resulted in injurious affection in so far as the remaining land is concerned, and that the approach of the court below in fixing the compensation amount on that count at a total of Rs. 7,500 treating an extent of 10 cents, out of the 30 cents odd, remaining in the hands of the respondents, as the portion so materially and adversely affected as to entitle the respondent to claim for injurious affection, is quite reasonable. For the reasons stated above, we find that the appeal is without merit, and it is therefore dismissed with costs. Dismissed.