IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 602 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.175/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- XAVIER,S/O.SOURU,INJAKKA,EDAVOOR KARA KOOVAPADY VILLAGE KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH BHASKAR SRI.BINU JOHN SRI.C.M.AMEER ALI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (LA) NH NO.11, ALUVA. 2. THE MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, KALADY BRANCH. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A No.602 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J Claimant is the appellant. His property together with portion of a substantial building which stood upon the same was acquired for the purpose of development of the main central road. The property was situated at Kalady town. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 5.12.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.84,029/- per Are. Before the reference court for the building portion which existed on the property he was awarded the compensation of Rs.5,25,699/-. Before the reference Court it was on Ext.A1 judgment of the same court in another case, which was relied on. Ext.A1 reflected the land value of Rs.8,92,607/- per Are. Eventhough Ext.A1 was in respect of the property situated very near to the property under acquisition, the learned subordinate judge did not place reliance on Ext.A1. In respect of building no evidence was adduced by the appellant. The learned subordinate judge thus did not award any enhancement to the L.A.A No.602 of 2009 2 appellant. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing, what is described as the inadequacy of the compensation redetermined by the reference court. 2. Sri.Sreesa Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed before us in detail on the basis of the grounds. According to him Ext.A1 should have been followed and the entire claim for land value raised by the appellant should have been upheld. There was justification for the reasonable increase to the building compensation also. 3. Mr.C.R.Shyam Kumar, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned subordinate judge cannot be blamed for not having relied on Ext.A1. Eventhough the appellant took out a commission, the appellant did not think it necessary to have acquired property and the property covered by Ext.A1 compared. As for the building compensation in the absence of evidence the learned subordinate judge could not have granted any compensation. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to approve the action of the learned subordinate judge in having discarded Ext.A1. After all Ext.A1 was in respect of the property situated L.A.A No.602 of 2009 3 near Kalady junction, Ext.A1 certainly has considerable probative value. Ext.A1 was in respect of an acquisition about 2 ½ years ago. If additions on the rate of 10% are given per year, taking into account the fact that the Kalady is a semi urban area, the market value of the land should have been re-fixed at more than Rs.8,92,607/- per Are. But in this particular case we find that the total land value claimed is only at the rate of Rs.1,05,857/-. We rely on Ext.A1 and award further value of land under acquisition at the the rate of Rs.1,05,857/-. 5. We have gone through the judgment of the reference court. It is true that no legal evidence has been adduced by the appellant to support his claim for further compensation for the building. But it is obvious that the building in question was valued by the Land Acquisition Authority with the assistance of the Public Works Department. True, the value of the building was arrived at adopting Public Works Department's schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of the building in accordance with the Public Works Department's scheduled rates is not realistic. Even PWD tenders out its civil works, at 30 to 35% more than the published rates. Keeping this aspect in our mind, we award to the appellant a total amount L.A.A No.602 of 2009 4 of Rs.1 lakh as additional compensation for the building. However, we clarify that total additional compensation awarded to the appellant is limited to Rs.1,90,873.71 on both counts . 6. The appeal is allowed in full. The appellant will be entitled for all the statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 (2) Section 23(1)A and Section 28. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The appellant will be entitled for the proportionate costs also. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab