IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 2339 of 2008(D) --------------------------- LAR.265/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- T.C.ROY, PULLYATTU THUKALAN HOUSE, VATTUKUNNU, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAMPI SRI.SOMAN P.PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS ERNAKULAM, COCHIN – 16. ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 2339 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. He is aggrieved only by the redetermination of compensation for the building which existed on his property which was acquired for the purpose of railway. It was a residential building that existed on his property. For that building the L.A. Officer awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,320/- obviously on the basis of report submitted by an Engineer of the Public Works Department as per PWD schedule of rates. Before the reference court the appellant got an Expert Engineer Commissioner appointed and the commissioner submitted Ext.C1 report. As per C1 report the building had valued at Rs.1,76,892/-. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment rejected Ext.C1 giving reasons which we also accept to be good. Ultimately, what the learned LAA. 2339/08 - 2 - Subordinate Judge did was to notice the reality that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a practical proposition and to grant 25% increase over what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. Thus additional compensation of Rs.28,580/- was awarded towards building. 2. In this appeal several grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the reference court and Sri. P.P. Thambi, learned counsel for the appellant addressed us on the basis of those grounds. Mr. Thambi submitted that there was no justification for discarding Ext.C1 especially since C1 was duly proved by examining AW-2, the author of C1. The submissions of Mr.Thambi were resisted by Mr.M.C. Cherian, learned counsel for the railway. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through Ext.C1 report which was made available for perusal by Mr. Thambi. As already indicated, we are of the LAA. 2339/08 - 3 - view that the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Ext.C1 are good and reasonable. We also are not prepared to rely on Ext.C1 for granting enhancement to the appellant. At the same time, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was a little miserly when she came to awarding value for the building. On a better assessment based on the reality that construction of buildings as per PWD schedule of rates is not at all pragmatic, we refix the value of the building under acquisition at Rs.1,60,400/-. This means that over and above the enhanced compensation of Rs.28,580/- granted by the reference court the appellant will be entitled for a further amount of Rs.17,500/-. We award such further amount to the appellant. Appeal is allowed as above. Needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land LAA. 2339/08 - 4 - Acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The parties will suffer their respective costs in this appeal. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-