IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 308 of 2011(B) ------------------------------- LAR.125/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ JOY, S/O.ANTONY ,AGED 57 KALATHIPARAMBIL, VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.308 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. His lands were included in categories 8 and 9 and acquired for the National Highway-17 reach from Varapuzha to Cheriappilly. For the lands which were included in category-8, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 38,979/- per Are. For the lands included in category-9, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 33,132/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment has re-fixed the land value by granting enhancement by 50% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. This the Reference Court did after discarding the various documents produced. Our attention is drawn by the learned L. A. A. No.308 of 2011 -2- Government Pleader Smt.T.T.Josephina to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.1299/09. We notice that under that judgment which pertains to acquisition of land for the same purpose but included in a superior category, this Court has re-fixed the land value at 80% above the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Sri.T.K.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the claimant drew our attention to judgment in L.A.A.749/09 and L.A.A.721/09 and submitted that under that judgment this Court has granted enhancement by 87% in respect of land which was included in category-7. He requested that land value be enhanced by at least 87%. He further submitted that the court below was not justified in discarding Advocate Commissioner's Report by which the value of the building was reported to be ` 2,63,193/-. Smt.T.T.Josephina submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons for discarding L. A. A. No.308 of 2011 -3- the Commissioner's Report. 2. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having taken into account various judgments of this Court re-fixing market value of lands acquired for the same purpose and also the evidence on record in this case, we feel that the market value of the lands under acquisition can be re-fixed giving enhancement by 80% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, for the lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 38,979/- the value is re-fixed at ` 70,162/-. Of the other lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 33,132/- the value is re-fixed at ` 59,637/-. 3. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in discarding the Commissioner's Report. L. A. A. No.308 of 2011 -4- At the same time, we notice that the L.A. Authority valued the building by adopting PWD's published schedule of rates. It is well known that constructing buildings by adopting PWD's published schedule of rates is not realistic. We feel that there is justification for granting to the appellant ` 50,000/- more towards value of building. Accordingly, we award to the appellant ` 50,000/- towards building value. The appeal is allowed as above. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation. However, while provision is made for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by this Court in its order dated 13/06/11 in C.M. Application No.700/11. The decree copy will be issued only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memoranda is remitted. 4. The appeal is allowed, however, without any order as L. A. A. No.308 of 2011 -5- to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-