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. 140 of 2011(D) -------------------------- LAR.217/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- AMBIKAVALLY,D/O.KUNJU PILLAI, VELIYIL AMBIKA BHAVANAM,PUTHENTHURA.P.O, NEENDAKARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.T.S.ANURAJ SRI.C.K.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. 2. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,S.DANDAPAT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T. JOSEPHINA SRI V.SANTHARAM SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI FOR R2 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. 140 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant, whose land with building in Neendakara village was acquired for the purpose of Inland Waterways Authority of India, is the judgment of the Reference Court refixing the compensation. In the present appeal, claims are made for enhanced land value and also for enhanced value for the building and enhanced value of improvements (mainly the trees). 2. As for the claim for enhanced land value, we notice the judgment of this court in L.A.A. No.102/2011 and find that the market value refixed under the impugned judgment has been approved by this Court. Hence, we are unable to uphold the appellant's claim for further value towards the land acquired. 3. It appears to us that the appellant has genuine grievance regarding the value of improvements given to her. A total amount of Rs.2812/- is paid towards the value of L.A.A.No.140/2011 2 improvements excluding the building. We are told that there were as many as 13 coconut trees which were yielding. Since the land value method was adopted, the appellant could have aspired for only timber value. But, according to us, the amount of Rs.2812/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate. We award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.2,500/- towards value of improvements exclusive of the building. 4. For the building, the Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs.1,88,461/-. Before the Reference Court, the appellant relied on Ext.A3 valuation certificate prepared by AW2 a Chartered Engineer. Under Ext.A3, it was reported that the correct value of the building will be Rs.6,56,550/- after depreciation. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no justification for discarding Ext.A3. According to the learned counsel, full amount recommended in Ext.A3 should have been awarded. 5. Sri.V.Santharam would oppose the above arguments of the counsel for the appellant. 6. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar L.A.A.No.140/2011 3 and having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding Ext.A3 are very good reasons. We endorse those reasons. But the question is whether the appellant is entitled for further amounts towards the value of the building which existed on the land under acquisition. Obviously, the above building was valued by the Land Acquisition Authority adopting the PWD's published schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings adopting the PWD schedule of rates is not a realistic idea. This court has been enhancing the building value by 30% to 35% adopting the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with the PWD schedule of rate is not a realistic approach. Adopting the same principle, the appellant can be awarded a sum of Rs.57,000/- more towards the building value. Accordingly, we award to the appellant Rs.57,000/- more towards the value of the building. 7. Compensation due to the appellant will stand refixed as above. On the refixed compensation, the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act. L.A.A.No.140/2011 4 The appeal will stand allowed, however without any order as to costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is remitted. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk The last paragraph of the judgment in L.A.A. 140/2011 dated 1/7/2011 is deleted and substituted by the following; "The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent with proportionate costs. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum is paid" Vide order dated 18/8/2011 in I.A No.2183/11 in L.A.A. NO.140/11. Registrar (Judicial)