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 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 398 of 2006(D) -------------------------- LAR.57/2001 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- P.VASUDEVAN, KANNEL HOUSE, PALLANA, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PARAMARA ROAD, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI FOR R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R.BINDU FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, ALONG WITH LAA.No.16/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.398 of 2006 & 16 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. L.A.A.No.398 of 2006 is preferred by the claimant and L.A.A.No.16 of 2007 is preferred by the requisitioning authority. The case pertains to acquisition of land and building in Thrikkunnappuzha Village , for the purpose of widening of National Waterways Terminal. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.6,131/- per Are and awarded a total amount of Rs.2,39,427/- as compensation for the building as well as for the appurtenant structures. 2. The evidence before the Reference Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A1, the oral evidence of witnesses, Aws.1 to 5, and the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and the Expert, Exts.C1, C1(a) and C2. Significantly, there was no counter oral or documentary evidence at all, on the side of the Government or the requisitioning L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007 2 authority. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 report had recommended for award of a total amount of Rs.5,00,495/- as compensation for the building. The court below did not become inclined to rely on the Advocate Commissioner's report, as it was noticed that the expert who assisted the Commissioner had prepared the report even before the court had issued commission warrant to the Advocate. However, the learned Sub Judge awarded an enhanced amount of Rs.1,19,713/- towards compensation for the building and structures existed between the property, thus, awarding 50% more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties regarding the market value of the land, the learned Sub Judge re-fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per Are. 3. In the appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority, various grounds are raised contending that the enhancement granted by the reference court is excessive. But, L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007 3 in the appeal preferred by the claimant, various grounds are raised contending that what has been granted by the reference court is very low. 4. The learned counsel, Sri.V.Santharam, appearing for the requisitioning authority, as also the learned counsel, Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, appearing for the claimant, have addressed before us on the basis of the grounds raised in their respective appeal memorandum. 5. Sri.Santharam, the learned counsel for the requisitioning authority, has referred to the judgment of this Court in LAA.Nos.619 & 414 of 2006, and submitted that as per those judgments, which also pertain to acquisition of identical land in the same village, this Court has finally re-fixed the value at the rate of Rs.13,795/- per Are. He further submitted that the award of an additional compensation of Rs.1,19,713/- towards the value of the building is not at all acceptable, as according to him, there is a clear finding to the effect that the L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007 4 Commissioner's report is not dependable, and taking into consideration the oral evidence alone, it was not all proper for the court below to grant so much of additional compensation for the building. 6. The submissions raised by the learned counsel, Sri.V.Santharam, were resisted by the learned counsel, Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant. He submitted that unlike the properties covered by L.A.A.Nos. 619 & 414 of 2006, the property under acquisition in this case was situated at Thonnakkal near to Kumaranasan Smarakam. He also submitted that the area in question is a very important tourism destination and regular boat races are being conducted in the area. According to him, the property under acquisition in this case has to be treated as superior to other properties. He also argued that the court below went wrong in not relying on the Advocate Commissioner's report. L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007 5 7. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at Bar by the counsel on either side. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.619 & 414 of 2006, fixing the market value of identical lands, at the rate of Rs.13,795/- per Are is binding on the claimant as well. The claimant cannot aspire for higher rate as the Land Acquisition Officer has treated the property under acquisition as well as the properties covered by the judgments in L.A.A.Nos. 619 & 414 of 2006 to be of equal value. 8. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of the submissions made by learned counsel, Sri.V.Santharam, in the context of compensation awarded for the building, we are not inclined to interfere with the Award of an amount of Rs.1,19,713/- as additional compensation for the building. Obviously, it is by adopting the PWD schedule of rates that the Land Acquisition authority fixed the structure value at the rate of L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007 6 Rs.2,39,427/-. Even, PWD tenders their civil works at the rate of 40% above the published rates. 9. The learned Sub Judge certainly found that the Commissioner's report is not dependable, but, this finding was entered mainly on the premise that the Engineer who assisted the Commissioner had prepared the report even before the Commissioner had been appointed. In short, the court thought that the Engineer was the claimant's own man. But, as per the details discernible from the mahazar prepared by the land acquisition authorities itself, the value given for the building and the appurtenant structures were substantial. It is not in dispute that the building was only 16 years old. We, feel, having regard to the undeniable fact that the construction cost during the past decades has been on the increase, the enhancement presently granted is not excessive. Hence, we approve the said award. L.A.A.Nos.398/2006 & 16/2007 7 10. In the result, L.A.A.No.16/2007 is allowed to the extent of re-fixing the market value at land at the rate of Rs.13,795/- per Are. L.A.A.No.398 of 2006 is dismissed. The claimant is entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, on the total enhanced compensation, to which he becomes eligible, by virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. nj.