JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. The State has come up in appeals challenging the award passed by the reference court in LAR Nos.33 of 2012, 34 of 2012 & 11 of 2014 on the file of Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha. In one of the appeals, i.e. LAA No. 217 of 2017, cross objection No. 48 of 2018 was also filed by claimants. An extent of 4.86 Ares of land in Sy. No. 1021/6-A-3pt, 3.99 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No. 1021/6A-3pt and 02.54 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No. 1022/2-3 in Kothamangalam Village of Kothamangalam Taluk, were acquired for the construction of Thankalam-Kozhippilly New Bye Pass Road crossing NH-49. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 18.07.2006. Land acquisition Officer categorised the land under category VIII and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.74,000/- per Are. This land has been classified as a wetland in revenue records. In respect of category V, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,02,300/- per Are. In respect of category IV, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,11,200/-. Category IV and V are dry land. The reference court enhanced the land value for category VIII to Rs.2,47,100/- as similar to category IV and V. The State preferred these appeals challenging enhancement. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the land in category VIII being a wetland, it cannot be equated with a land in category IV and V. 3. The commission report shows that there were coconut trees in that land. Therefore, it is clear that it is a converted land. Merely for the reason that in the revenue record, the land was shown as wetland, it cannot be differentiated with dry land, for the purpose of awarding compensation. It is to be noted that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force only with effect from 12.08.2008. There was no rigor in utilising the land as a classified wetland prior to 12.08.2008. Therefore, the reference court was rightly justified in equating this land in the same category of IV and V. We have dismissed the State’s appeal preferred against enhancement of the market value in respect of category IV and V. In the light of above, we dismiss the State’s appeals. 4. However, in cross objection filed by the claimants, they have a case that they were only awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for injurious affection of remaining land. 4. However, in cross objection filed by the claimants, they have a case that they were only awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for injurious affection of remaining land. We had gone through the commission report and sketch. The commission report clearly states that balance land remaining useless and it cannot be put to any use. We also looked at the shape of the land in Ext.A2 sketch. We are sure that the same cannot be put to any use. As per Ext.A2(a) Area Register this would come to 3.14 Ares. In the light of the above, we are of the view that for injurious affection to that 3.14 Ares of land, compensation can be enhanced to 50% of the market value of the land fixed for the acquired land i.e. Rs.2,47,100/- per Are. 5. A Single Judge of this Court in Kader v. State of Kerala, 2005 (1) KLT 598 , held that the amount awarded by way of injurious affection is also part of excess compensation. Therefore, it will carry interest. Hence the above compensation under the head of injurious affection will carry statutory interest. Thus the cross objection is allowed to the extent as above. The cross objectors also will be entitled for proportionate costs. 6. In the result, LAA Nos. 73 of 2017, 217 of 2017, 51 of 2018 are dismissed and CO No. 48 of 2018 in LAA No. 217 of 2017 is allowed to the extent as above.